PRIVATE BUSINESS

Standing Orders

Ordered,
	That the Amendments to Standing Orders set out in the Schedule be made at the beginning of the new session of Parliament:—

Schedule

1
	Standing Order 1, line 76, at end insert—
	'the term "unitary district" means a non-metropolitan district which is not included in the area of a county council;'.
	After Standing Order 1
	2
	Insert—
	New Standing Order 1A
	'Deposit of documents etc at offices of government departments and public bodies
	1A.—(1) Any reference in a provision of these orders to a document, or to a copy or copies of a document, being deposited in accordance with this order is a reference to the document, or to a copy or copies of the document, being deposited—
	(a) at the offices of such government departments and public bodies as may be specified in the list, and
	(b) if the context so admits, in such quantities as may be so specified.
	(2) In paragraph (1) above—
	'document' includes any bill, plan, section, book of reference, ordnance map, environmental or other statement or estimate;
	'the list' means the list which, for the purposes of this order, is compiled and maintained by the Private Bill Office under the direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
	(3) The provisions of these orders which contain such references as are mentioned in paragraph (1) above are—
	(a) Standing Order 27(5),
	(b) Standing Order 27A(1),
	(c) Standing Order 29,
	(d) Standing Order 30,
	(e) Standing Order 30A(1),
	(f) Standing Order 31,
	(g) Standing Order 32,
	(h) Standing Order 34,
	(i) Standing Order 37,
	(j) Standing Order 39,
	(k) Standing Order 45(3), and
	(1) Standing Order 47(1).'.
	3
	Standing Order 2A, line 5, after 'November', insert '(or if that day is a Saturday or a Sunday, the first Monday following that day)'.
	4
	Standing Order 4A, line 17, after 'district,' insert 'unitary district,'.
	5
	Standing Order 4A, line 28, after 'districts,' insert 'unitary districts,'.
	6
	Standing Order 4A, line 44, after 'district,' insert 'unitary district,'.
	7
	Standing Order 4A, line 49, after 'district,' insert 'unitary district,'.
	8
	Standing Order 5, line 33, leave out 'and'.
	9
	Standing Order 5, line 36, at end insert '; and
	(f) where it is proposed by the bill to confer powers authorising any alteration or disturbance of the surface of any street or road in connection with the construction of a tramway, tram road, trolley vehicle system or an underground railway, a general description of the roads or streets which may be affected by the exercise of the power and of the circumstances in which, and the extent to which, it is envisaged that the power may be exercised.'.
	10
	Standing Order 10, line 13, after 'district,' insert 'unitary district,'.
	11
	Standing Order 10, line 24, after 'districts,' insert 'unitary districts,'.
	12
	Standing Order 10, line 36, after 'district,' insert 'unitary district,'.
	13
	Standing Order 10, line 40, after 'county', insert ', metropolitan district, unitary district or London borough'.
	After Standing Order 10
	Insert—
	New Standing Order 10A
	'Publication of notice relating to works bills
	14
	10A. (1) If the bill—
	(a) authorises the construction of works to which Standing Order 27 (Deposit of plan, book of reference, and section, etc.) applies, or the compulsory acquisition of lands or of rights to use lands, or
	(b) extends the time limited by a former Act for any of those purposes, the notice shall be displayed for two consecutive weeks ending not later than 11 December at a place of public resort in each of the counties, metropolitan districts, unitary authorities, or London boroughs or (in Wales) the counties or county boroughs or (in Scotland) the local government areas in which the works are to be, or the lands are, situated.
	(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), 'place of public resort' includes a public library and a local government office.'.
	15
	Standing Order 12, line 4, leave out 'confer powers authorising any alteration or disturbance of' and insert 'alter or disturb'.
	16
	Standing Order 12, line 8, leave out 'such street or road' and insert 'street or road the surface of which it is proposed to alter or disturb'.
	17
	Standing Order 12, line 10, leave out 'powers' and insert 'alteration or disturbance'.
	18
	Standing Order 12, line 12, leave out 'powers' and insert 'alteration or disturbance'.
	19
	Standing Order 12, line 21, leave out 'the said powers are proposed to be conferred' and insert 'it is proposed to alter or disturb the surface of any street or road'.
	20
	Standing Order 12, line 24, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.
	21
	Standing Order 16, line 24, leave out 'county councils, metropolitan districts or London boroughs, as the case may be' and insert 'councils of counties, metropolitan districts, unitary districts or London boroughs or (in Wales) counties or county boroughs'.
	22
	Standing Order 27, line 12, after 'district,' insert 'unitary district,'.
	23
	Standing Order 27, line 23, after 'district' insert ', unitary district'.
	24
	Standing Order 27, line 28, after 'district,' insert 'unitary district,'.
	25
	Standing Order 27, line 54, after 'district,' insert 'unitary district,'.
	26
	Standing Order 27, line 69, leave out from 'and' to end of line 73 and insert 'copies of the same shall be deposited in accordance with Standing Order 1A.'.
	27
	Standing Order 27A, line 30, leave out paragraph (2) and insert—
	'(2) Copies shall be deposited in accordance with Standing Order IA.'.
	28
	Standing Order 29, line 7, leave out from 'deposited' to end of line 9 and insert 'in the Private Bill Office and in accordance with Standing Order 1A.'.
	29
	Standing Order 30, line 5, leave out from 'deposited' to end and insert 'in accordance with Standing Order 1A.'.
	30
	Standing Order 30A, line 4, leave out from 'deposit' to 'and' in line 5, and insert 'in accordance with Standing Order 1A.'.
	31
	Standing Order 31, line 6, leave out from 'deposited' to 'marked' in line 8, and insert 'in accordance with Standing Order 1A.'.
	32
	Standing Order 32, line 8, leave out from 'deposited' to end of line 9, and insert 'in accordance with Standing Order 1A.'.
	33
	Standing Order 34, line 9, leave out from 'deposited' to end and insert 'in accordance with Standing Order 1A.'.
	34
	Standing Order 36, line 12, after 'district', insert 'or unitary district,'.
	35
	Standing Order 37 is hereby repealed.
	New Standing Order 37
	'Deposit of copy of plan, etc. in certain circumstances
	36
	37. In the case of a bill by which it is proposed to authorise the compulsory acquisition—
	(a) of any churchyard, burial ground or cemetery, or any part thereof, or
	(b) of rights to use any churchyard, burial ground or cemetery, or any part thereof, or
	(c) of any other land, or of rights to use any other land,
	copies of so much of the deposited plan, section (if any) and book of references as relates to the land shall, on or before 20th November, be deposited in accordance with Standing Order IA.'.
	37
	Standing Order 38, line 3, after 'November', insert '(or when 27th November is a Saturday or a Sunday, on the first Monday following that day)'.
	38
	Standing Order 39 is hereby repealed.
	New Standing Order 39
	'Deposit of copies of bills
	39
	39. On or before 4th December, printed copies of every bill shall be deposited in accordance with Standing Order 1A.'.
	40
	Standing Order 45, line 19, leave out from 'deposited' to end and insert accordance with Standing Order IA.'.
	41
	Standing Order 47, line 9, leave out from 'and' to 'on' in line 11 and insert 'in accordance with Standing Order IA.'.
	42
	Standing Order 55, line 17, leave out from 'datum' to 'shall', and insert 'of Newlyn.'.
	43
	Standing Order 61, line 16, after 'district,' insert 'unitary district,'.
	44
	Standing Order 61, line 33, after 'county' insert ', metropolitan district, unitary district or London borough'.
	45
	Standing Order 62, line 15, after 'county' insert ', metropolitan district, unitary district or London borough'.
	46
	Standing Order 65, line 28, after 'county,' insert 'metropolitan district, unitary district or London borough'.
	47
	Standing Order 98, line 8, after 'district' insert ', unitary district'.
	48
	Standing Order 131A, line 3, leave out from 'be' to end of line 4 and insert 'reproduced at the expense of the parties and the cost of reproduction shall be divided among the several parties in such proportions as may be specified by the Private Bill Office.'.
	49
	Standing Order 145, line 3, leave out second 'the' and insert 'any'.
	After Standing Order 145
	Insert—
	New Standing Order 145A
	'Minutes of evidence to be laid upon the Table
	50
	145A. The minutes of the evidence taken before a committee on a private bill shall be laid on the Table of the House and ordered to be published.'.
	51
	Standing Order 147, line 7, leave out 'for Transport' and insert 'responsible for the time being for transport matters'.
	52
	Standing Order 147, line 11, leave out 'for Transport' and insert 'responsible for the time being for transport matters'.
	53
	Standing Order 154, line 12, leave out 'for Transport' and insert 'responsible for the time being for transport matters'.
	54
	Standing Order 154, line 27, leave out 'for Transport' and insert 'responsible for the time being for transport matters'.
	55
	Standing Order 174, line 3, leave out '2.45 p.m.' and insert 'a quarter of an hour after the House sits'.
	56
	Standing Order 174, line 28, leave out 'for 7 p.m.' and insert 'at a time three hours before the moment of interruption'.
	57
	Standing Order 174, line 39, leave out '7 p.m.' and insert 'a time three hours before the moment of interruption'.
	New Standing Orders 188A and 188B
	58
	'After Standing Order 188A
	Insert—
	"Suspension and revival of Bills
	Suspension of bills
	188A.—(1) Paragraph (2) applies where—
	(a) this House resolves that the promoters of a bill originating in this House should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, and any conditions attached to the leave have been met; and
	(b) the House of Lords concur with the resolution, or have previously passed a resolution to the like effect as the resolution of this House.
	(2) The bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office on the fifth sitting day in the next session together with a declaration, signed by the agent, stating that the bill is the same in every respect as the bill at the last stage of the proceedings on it in this House in the current session.
	(3) Paragraph (4) applies where
	(a) this House resolves that the promoters of a bill originating in the House of Lords should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, and any conditions attached to the leave have been met; and
	(b) the House of Lords subsequently pass a resolution to the like effect as the resolution of this House.
	(4) If the bill is brought from the House of Lords in the next session, the agent for the bill shall deposit in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments a declaration, signed by the agent, stating that the bill is the same in every respect as the bill which was brought from the House of Commons in the current session.
	(5) The following provisions of this Order apply in either case.
	(6) The bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the current session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages, and no new fees shall be charged to those stages.
	(7) These Standing Orders shall apply to the bill in the next session only in regard to any stage through which the bill has not passed in the current session.
	(8) If there is any petition outstanding—
	(a) any such petition which has been presented (if not withdrawn) shall stand referred to any committee on the bill in the next session;
	(b) any minutes of evidence taken before a committee on the bill in the current session shall stand referred to any committee on the bill in the next session;
	(c) no petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the bill in the next session unless their petition has been presented within the time stipulated for the deposit of petitions in the current session or deposited pursuant to Standing Order 126(b);
	(d) Standing Order 127 shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)' were omitted.
	(9) In this order 'the current session' means the session in which the resolution of this House is passed and 'the next session' shall be construed accordingly."
	After Order 188A
	Insert—
	'Revival of bills
	188B.—(1) Paragraphs (2) and (3) apply where—
	(a) this House resolves that the promoters of a bill which—
	(i) originated in this House in an earlier session of this Parliament or in the last Parliament; and
	(ii) had not received the Royal Assent,
	should, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, have leave to proceed with the bill in the current session; and
	(b) the House of Lords concur with the resolution, or have previously passed a resolution to the like effect as the resolution of this House.
	(2) The petition for the bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with.
	(3) The bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the fifth day on which the House sits after the passing of the resolution, and a declaration, signed by the agent, shall be annexed to the bill stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill at the last stage of the proceedings on it in this House in the last session or the last Parliament or, as the case may be, the bill passed by this House.
	(4) Paragraph (5) applies where—
	(a) this House resolves that the promoters of a bill which—
	(i) originated in the House of Lords in an earlier session of this Parliament or in the last Parliament; and
	(ii) had not received the Royal Assent,
	should, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, have leave to proceed with the bill in the current session; and
	(b) the House of Lords subsequently pass a resolution to the like effect as the resolution of this House.
	(5) If the bill is brought from the House of Lords in the current session, the agent for the bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by the agent, stating that the bill is the same in every respect as the bill which was brought from the Commons in the last session or the last Parliament.
	(6) The following provisions of this Order apply in either case.
	(7) The bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the last session or last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages, and no new fees shall be charged to those stages.
	(8) If there is any petition outstanding—
	(a) any such petition which has been presented (if not withdrawn) shall stand referred to any committee on the bill in the current session;
	(b) any minutes of evidence taken before a committee on the bill in the last session or last Parliament shall stand referred to any committee on the bill in the current session;
	(c) no petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the bill in the current session unless their petition has been presented within the time stipulated for the deposit of petitions in the last session or last Parliament or deposited pursuant to Standing Order 126(b);
	(d) Standing Order 127 shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted.
	(9) In this Order "current session" means the session of Parliament in which the resolution of this House is passed and "this Parliament" means the Parliament in which the resolution of this House is passed; "the last Parliament" and "the last session" shall be construed accordingly.'.".
	59
	Standing Order 200, line 6, leave out 'two' and insert 'five'.
	60
	Standing Order 204A, line 4, leave out '7 p.m.' and insert 'a time three hours before the moment of interruption'.
	61
	Standing Order 208A, line 4, leave out '7 p.m.' and insert 'a time three hours before the moment of interruption'.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Coal Health Claims

Paddy Tipping: How much was paid in coal health claims up to 31 March; how many claimants have benefited; and if she will make a statement on plans to increase the speed at which claims are processed.

Nigel Griffiths: We have paid £2.6 billion to nearly 420,000 claimants. Some £64.5 million of that was spread between 13,094 claimants in my hon. Friend's constituency. I pay tribute to his work in that regard. On 28 February, the Department began to make fast-track offers to claimants. We aim to ensure that remaining claims are dealt with as speedily as possible.

Paddy Tipping: The sum of £2.6 billion for coal health claims is very significant. Will the Minister remind us that the last Conservative Government refused the claim, and will he make it his policy to put more money into more miners' pockets more quickly?

Nigel Griffiths: Indeed. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have striven to ensure that they get justice for sick miners and their widows and families.

Michael Clapham: I welcome the Minister's statement. In Barnsley, £166 million has been received in the community; in my constituency the figure was £39 million. I draw his attention to yesterday's report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry which recommends that the 3,500 to 5,000 surface workers who have less than five years' service should be admitted to the scheme. Will he examine that recommendation seriously and consider either implementing a new scheme for such workers or bringing them into the current scheme?

Nigel Griffiths: I gave evidence to the Select Committee and I understand that its report was produced this week. I have not yet had a chance to study it, but I think that my hon. Friend knows that we give every sympathetic consideration to helping sick miners and their families. The surface workers issue is difficult, and he knows that I have taken a keen interest in it. I have not yet found evidence that would allow us to extend the scheme, but I will obviously read the Select Committee's deliberations with great care.

Jeff Ennis: Obviously, the announcement by the Minister is fantastic news. My constituency has benefited from almost £79 million in compensation.
	I wonder whether the Minister will take this opportunity to update the House about the negotiations to establish a minimum compensation level of £500 for chronic bronchitis? This week, I encountered yet another example of a former miner suffering from it in Hemingfield in my constituency who was receiving a full and final settlement of just £53.01. It is important that we examine the issue and establish the minimum fee as quickly as possible.

Nigel Griffiths: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, on Monday I had a meeting with the head of the National Union of Mineworkers in Scotland to discuss how we could progress with the minimum fee. The solicitors made a proposal, and said that, as their average fee including VAT is about £2,300, they might sacrifice some of that to make up any payment offers under £500 up to that sum. We are now working on the mechanism that would allow that to be delivered.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that those who worked for other employers as well as the National Coal Board and British Coal have some difficulty? As he knows, there is a problem with multi-claims. Some private employers are refusing to pay their whack out of the total payment. Therefore, we must jump on them severely to try to get the claims settled. Such claims form the bulk of the outstanding claims. If we can get that show on the road and deal with the fast-tracking of £1,000, we will make much more progress for the next Parliament and get a lot more money.

Nigel Griffiths: We certainly will. Indeed, we have already honoured our part of that bargain. I am certainly the Minister to jump on such people.

Investment

Peter Viggers: If she will make a statement on Government policies to promote investment in the private sector.

Patricia Hewitt: The Government have put in place a stable macro-economic environment. We also support business investment through research and development tax credits, grants, regional selective assistance and the technology programme. Business investment rose by 5.5 per cent in 2004.

Peter Viggers: Is it not the most damning indictment of this Government that over the past eight years two public sector jobs have been created for every private sector job lost?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is, not surprisingly, completely ignoring the fact that since 1997 over 2 million more people are in work than when we were elected, that more people are in work than ever before in our country and that unemployment is at its lowest level for more than 30 years. All of that record of economic stability and employment would be put at risk by the policies that he supports: £35 billion of cuts in public spending and a return to the policies that gave us 15 per cent. interest rates and boom and bust.

Richard Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that on the subject of investment, the proposed joint venture between the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation and MG Rover is not only vital for the west midlands but offers long-term benefits to both companies and both countries? I express my appreciation for the work that she and all Ministers are doing to bring the matter to a successful conclusion. I thank her for the Department's statement that bridging finance could be made available within the rules. I ask her to confirm the comments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday that the Government will continue to do all that they can to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion to the benefit of both companies.

Patricia Hewitt: I thank my hon. Friend for his support and for his active involvement on behalf of his constituents. I can confirm what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, other Ministers and I are doing everything possible to bring this matter to a successful conclusion, and that remains the case.

Julie Kirkbride: The Secretary of State will be aware that I share the location of the Longbridge factory with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). Probably like him, I have been receiving many distress calls this week from workers at the factory. As I understand it, one of the principal stumbling blocks with the Chinese is whether or not the factory can be made solvent during the two years that it will take to get the new cars into production. To that end, can the right hon. Lady tell us what efforts her Department is making to sell off the MG sports car, one of the pinnacles of British manufacturing success, which might help to keep the plant afloat? Will she give us some of the details of the financial offering that has been made by the directors of Phoenix Venture Holdings? There are many people in the midlands who believe that they have lined their own pockets with the assets of the plant, which should now be available to keep the plant afloat.

Patricia Hewitt: I completely understand the anxiety that the present situation is causing to the 6,000 outstanding Rover workers and their families, and others who are potentially affected in the west midlands. The hon. Lady asked what efforts the Government are making to sell the MG Rover sports car. It is not for us to sell any company, and I am sure that she will understand that. I hope that she will also understand that I cannot comment on the details of the commercial discussions that have been taking place between MG Rover and the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation. I have to point out to her that the cuts that she and her party are proposing of £500 million—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the right hon. Lady that we must not make mention of the policies of the Conservative party. [Interruption.] I shall tell right hon. and hon. Members why not. From Monday onwards those policies can be mentioned, even by myself, if I wish, but not now.

Patricia Hewitt: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you are looking forward to your liberation.
	I shall make an important point. It is only because there is a Department of Trade and Industry, a Department with a significant budget, that we can undertake the efforts to which I have referred, and provide the sort of support that we have made available to companies throughout the country—manufacturing companies that have benefited from regional selective assistance in particular. This has safeguarded thousands of jobs that would be directly threatened if any future Government were either to abolish the Department or to reduce its budget by £500 million. Jobs and manufacturing in Britain would all be jeopardised.

Hilton Dawson: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for opening Infolab at Lancaster university recently. It represents a major £10 million public investment in world-class university research which will bring and is bringing huge private sector investment in its wake, bringing many hundreds of jobs to the area and establishing Lancaster as the centre of information technology-led business for the north-west for the future. I assure her that the city of Lancaster was glorious before the Labour Government but has been made even more glorious, and does she realise—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman too much licence.

Patricia Hewitt: I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on the achievements of the wonderful city of Lancaster but on the enormous work that he has done on behalf of his constituents. I am sure the whole House will join me in offering him every good wish for the future. I was hugely impressed and excited by the opening of Infolab at Lancaster university. It is a striking example of exactly the kind of partnership we need between our great universities and the business community. We are facilitating that through our investment in science, our technology programme and our investment in innovation. That is how we will ensure that Britain remains one of the world leaders in high-technology manufacturing. It is essential to the future of our economy that we make those investments and create those partnerships. All of them would be put at risk if that investment were not available.

Stephen O'Brien: We all want to see the 6,100 jobs at MG Rover, the skills at Longbridge and the wider supply chain saved, so will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to say on the Floor of the House, in relation to her policy of promoting investment—we are in live time, as we speak—and without hiding behind commercial confidentiality, given that taxpayers' money is being offered, whether the Government are definitely making the £100 million bridging loan to MG Rover to draw down now, to see the company through its financial crisis to the point when the deal with the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation and the consent of the Chinese Government can be secured?

Patricia Hewitt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I ensured that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions briefed him and the appropriate spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats on the progress that had been made at the end of last week. I propose to brief both of them again at an appropriate point as matters develop, and to make a statement, but I am not in a position to comment at this point on commercially confidential negotiations. He will understand, because we have discussed the matter before, that a bridging loan has been offered in order to provide a bridge to a commercial deal. That remains the case, but commercial discussions are taking place and at this point there is nothing more that I can say publicly. The Prime Minister made the Government's position clear yesterday, and that remains the case.

Stephen O'Brien: This, being my second question, is the last opportunity for the Secretary of State to make a statement on the Floor of the House, so notwithstanding the constraints under which she claims to be operating, will she tell us, in the context of the concern over a million jobs having been lost in UK manufacturing since Labour came to power eight years ago, what she and the Chancellor are doing to arrest the demise of our only volume car producer in the west midlands? If it did unfortunately suffer a demise, that would lead to the haemorrhaging of the wider supply chain across the west midlands, which is so important to the jobs and the skills base of one of the centres of excellence in our economy.

Patricia Hewitt: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and I have been doing everything possible to bring the Rover partnership's discussions with SAIC to a successful conclusion, and I really am not prepared to take lectures on manufacturing from the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of a party that presided over not one but two recessions, that destroyed hundreds of thousands of good manufacturing companies in the west midlands and throughout the rest of the country, that destroyed manufacturing jobs, that said the country did not need manufacturing, and that has now promised to scrap the regional selective assistance that has supported—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. O'Neill.

Martin O'Neill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the efforts that she and her colleagues are making in this matter. [Interruption.] It is a pretty sad day, albeit just before a general election, when the Opposition try to dress up cheap political points on such a serious matter as this, and rediscover the manufacturing industry which they wanted to abandon for so long, not least because this country still has the most successful automotive assembly industry in Europe, in which foreign businesses are more than willing to put their money, rather than just the mouthings of the Opposition. [Interruption.]

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The 6,000 workers at Rover deserve a great deal better than the laughter and the jeering that we have just heard from Opposition Members. We, including the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, have been giving Rover every possible support, and we have done our best to deal with this on a bipartisan basis. I regret very much, as my hon. Friend does, the way in which the Opposition have acted on this, but I thank him for the support that he has given, not only in the matter of Rover but for the investments that we have made in firms such as Nissan, LDV, Vauxhall in Ellesmere Port and Ford in Dagenham, all of which underline the success of our vehicle manufacturing and other advanced manufacturing in Britain. The best of British manufacturing is among the best in the world, and we are determined to keep it that way.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that when taxpayers' money goes into investing in the private sector in the UK, the headline jobs that are created there are often replicated by jobs destroyed elsewhere? Does she not recognise that Sean Quinn's 500 jobs have been put on hold because 1,000 jobs in existing manufacturing plants are likely to be lost, and in my constituency, jobs at R. B. Farquhar of Huntly have been lost as a direct result of public money being put into a Danish competitor to steal business from it?
	I appreciate the courtesy of having been included in the discussions on MG Rover, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is predictably ironic that the directors of MG Rover have put us in this position at the start of a general election campaign, and will she ensure that if public money is to be invested in that company it will be only on the assurance that there is a long-term solution, and that the directors put everything that they have at their disposal into that guarantee, because, after all, they have led the situation to the point where we are now in crisis and up against a deadline that the Government are struggling to meet?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of Quinn Glass. In that case, as in every case in which we consider investment support, we examine whether the company is willing to invest in new products and processes, which are essential for success in manufacturing today. We carefully examine additional investment, and the record on regional selective assistance is that for every pound of public money—we have put in more than £2 billion since 1998—we get more than £9 of private sector investment. As I understand it, the Quinn Glass production facility is on hold for planning reasons, which is a matter for the planning system. We will continue to support private sector investment in this country. Thanks in part to the stable macro-economic conditions that we have created, business investment has risen for the past seven quarters. The record on investment is outstanding, and it is a vote of confidence in the British economy.

Iraq (Reconstruction Contracts)

Tam Dalyell: What support her Department provides to British companies bidding for contracts for reconstruction work in Iraq.

Patricia Hewitt: My Department provides a range of support services through UK Trade and Investment for British firms interested in reconstruction work in Iraq. That includes providing commercially relevant information and advising on tender procedures for the main reconstruction agencies. Our advice takes full account of the security situation in Iraq and the terms of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice.

Tam Dalyell: I am told that I have received more oral parliamentary answers than anybody else in the history of Parliament, so I should thank Ministers of all parties, going back to Harold Macmillan.
	At Nuremberg in 1945, some very wicked men were put on trial. Does the former secretary of the National Council for Civil Liberties think that she, as a senior member of the Cabinet, should be pressing, for trade and other reasons, for Tariq Aziz, Saddam Hussein and others at least to get a trial? I have given her the names and numbers of Emile Ludot and Mathieu Faupin, lawyers who are trying to represent a client whom they have not been allowed to see for more than a year. If Hermann Goering and Josef Goebbels could get a trial, is it not about time that the Iraqis did?

Patricia Hewitt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his record of asking parliamentary questions and on his last question in the House.
	I have checked the position of Tariq Aziz and other war criminals awaiting trial in Iraq. Tariq Aziz has a named counsel of record registered with the Iraq special tribunal, and I understand that he has seen him twice already. Mr. Ludot and Mr. Faupin, the other lawyers in question, are not registered as co-counsel with the Iraq special tribunal. Furthermore, my understanding is that although they claim Mr. Aziz as their client, they have not requested the tribunal's permission to visit him. Both Tariq Aziz and Saddam Hussein have seen their lawyers.

Keith Simpson: Because of the security situation in Iraq, one of the biggest trade fairs had to take place in Jordan. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many officials from her Department attended and what support they gave to British companies?

Patricia Hewitt: We have been supporting British companies and helping British companies to work with Iraqi companies since the end of the conflict. Although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman detailed information about the Jordan trade fair, perhaps I can write to him this afternoon. In 2003, we set up a business facility in Baghdad. We are working with the chamber of commerce, and we have helped a number of British firms in their successful efforts to obtain contracts to help with the reconstruction process. A number of British companies and their trade associations have thanked my officials and ministerial colleagues for our support. I hope that all hon. Members welcome the creation of a democratic Iraqi Government and the fact that the reconstruction process, difficult though it is, is well under way. The British Government and British companies will continue to support the reconstruction process.

Ann Clwyd: May I remind my right hon. Friend that we used to support the Baghdad trade fairs—at least, the Conservatives did—throughout the time when Saddam Hussein was killing the Shi'a and the Kurds?
	Continuing the process of the reconstruction of Iraq, the inauguration of the new President of Iraq is taking place at this moment. He is Jalal Talabani, who for 60 years struggled against various regimes in Iraq, fought Saddam Hussein, and fled to the mountains in 1991 when helicopter gunships were being used against the Kurds and others. I think that we will all want to send congratulations to him today. He is not only a democrat but from a minority group in Iraq, which shows that minorities can become as important even in that country as they can in this country.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the whole House will want to join me in sending our congratulations to President Talabani, who assumes office today. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on her stalwart efforts over a very long period to support the oppressed people of Iraq during Saddam Hussein's regime and since the end of the conflict. I very much hope that despite the divisions within this House on the conflict itself we can all now unite in supporting the people of Iraq, who showed enormous courage in defying the terrorists to come out and vote, in their work to reconstruct their own country on peaceful and democratic lines.

Nick Hawkins: As a somewhat younger retiring Member than the distinguished Father of the House, may I, on a suitably non-partisan note, echo what the Secretary of State just said? May I also to ask her to join me in commending the bravery of those who work for British companies, and indeed for companies throughout the western world, who are prepared, at great personal risk, to go to take part in the reconstruction work in Iraq?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman makes a correct and important point. It is, if I may say so, a very good note on which to end his parliamentary career. The courage of many such people—not only the staff working directly for British and other western firms, but many of my own officials who voluntarily went out to Iraq to help in the aftermath of the conflict, and above all the Iraqi people, particularly when working with western firms and therefore likely to be a target for terrorist attack—is to be admired unreservedly on both sides of the House.

Ken Purchase: Is the Secretary of State prepared to agree that one of the key elements of a successful bidding process is a ready access to high standards, and that BSI—formerly known as the British Standards Institution—and the International Organisation for Standardisation, or ISO, are brand leaders in this field and should give European companies a competitive edge? Is she aware, though, that the Americans have been playing a very hard-sell game with standards since the beginning of the conflict in Iraq, and have stepped up their efforts since then, in trying to impose American standards on all work across the whole country? Will she assure the House that she will stand foursquare with BSI in ensuring that we resist the Americanisation of components and construction work in Iraq?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right and I am delighted to say that we have been doing exactly what he asks since the end of the conflict. Indeed, the American Administration made an early attempt to impose American standards for mobile telephone technology even though European standards had been in use throughout the middle east for a long time. I am delighted to say that that proposal did not get any further.

Patrick Cormack: How many contracts have been awarded to British companies up to now? What is their total value? What are the Secretary of State and the Department doing to ensure that all possible contracts are drawn to the attention of British companies?

Patricia Hewitt: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information that he requests for the simple reason that there is no obligation on British companies to tell us when they win a contract. However, as I said earlier, we have helped many companies to win contracts, including AMEC. They have expressed their appreciation for the help that we have given them. By ensuring that we remain close to the tendering process—initially with the coalition provisional authority and now the Iraqi Government—we can make the information directly available to contractors here. We have supported them through contractors' conferences, trade fairs and the work that I mentioned earlier.

India/China

Hugh Bayley: What progress the Government are making in opening markets for UK companies to sell financial services in India and China.

Douglas Alexander: The UK Government fully support the efforts of the European Union to negotiate commitments on opening financial services markets in World Trade Organisation countries, including India and China, as part of the Doha development agenda. The recent visits of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to India and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to China have stressed the message from industry that a liberalised and transparent financial services sector brings huge benefits, including increased foreign direct investment and the transfer of skills.

Hugh Bayley: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend's comments. The insurance company Aviva is an important employer in York. It has a subsidiary in India that sells life assurance policies and that helps to safeguard jobs in the UK. However, Aviva's general insurance business cannot sell policies in India because the Government of India will not allow foreign companies to compete with Indian insurers. Will my hon. Friend ensure that our Government continue to press the Indian and Chinese Governments to allow UK companies to compete on a level playing field in their countries, where there is a growing middle class that wants insurance because of the security that it brings them?

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the subject, on which he has worked tirelessly. I understand that, in India, foreign underwriters have set an equity cap of 26 per cent. Of course, that is a matter of concern to us and it is why officials of UK Trade and Investment and our high commissioner in Delhi have already raised the matter with the Indian Government. I assure hon. Members that that work will continue to ensure that we can give the best opportunities to the British companies that my hon. Friend described.

Alistair Burt: The Minister claims to support exports and opportunities for our companies abroad, but why is the Department reducing support under the support for exhibitions and seminars abroad—SESA—scheme for companies that want to attend trade fairs and open up markets abroad? Why has the Department resisted the representations that have been made to improve the conditions under that scheme and not restrict them, as the Government are doing?

Douglas Alexander: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's brass neck in raising SESA funding given the Conservative party's approach to funding support for UK exports. On his substantive point, there is a genuine challenge to ensure that resources are used effectively. We believe that the best use of public money is, especially where market failure has occurred, to help those companies that are new to export. That is why we established the passport to export scheme. In the past, several companies secured public support and subsidy sequentially for some years. Labour Members believe that the best use of public money is to use it for those companies that have never previously exported, thus giving them the opportunity to export to new markets for the first time. I am sure that many people in industry agree with us.

John McFall: The Minister knows that, in the past few weeks, the Treasury Committee visited Beijing and Shanghai, where we witnessed one of the most rapid changes in global trading patterns, with China exporting more than Britain, France and Italy combined. We were pleased to note the presence of insurance companies such as Prudential and Standard Life Assurance. However, in a weak and immature banking system, there was an absence of the large retail banks in the market. What encouragement can the Minister and the Government give to such companies to embed themselves in a rapidly growing market?

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this issue, which draws on the point that I was making earlier. There is a great deal of work being done by UKTI in China and about 100 missions supported by UKTI will take place there in 2005 and 2006. On the specific issue of access to British financial services—an area in which we have a great deal of expertise—I can assure the House that lobbying by UKTI has helped to secure operating licences for Prudential, Standard Life and Aviva. The China-Britain Business Council is working with UKTI to secure a further 220 licences, targeted for the years 2005 and 2006.

Emissions Trading Scheme

Anne McIntosh: If she will make a statement on the impact of the European Union emissions trading scheme on UK business.

Mike O'Brien: The emissions trading scheme affects 12,000 installations across the EU and aims to tackle the problem of global warning and climate change by reducing emissions. To protect our competitive position in the world, the UK Government have allocated allowances to industry in a way that recognises their projected needs. One sector that has a below business-as-usual allocation is the electricity supply sector, but it is not subject to substantial international competition.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but I am sure that he is aware that his Government are in danger of speaking with forked tongue. His Department has agreed to negotiate with Europe on this matter, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the lead Department. Under the national allocation plan, a number of high-energy industrial companies have reached a climate change agreement that will be subject to a decision—taken behind closed doors and with no politicians present—of a comitology committee of national officials in the European Commission on whether the climate change agreements will be exempt from the Commission's trading plan. The Minister was kind enough to meet me to discuss this point. Will he assure me that progress has been made and that those companies will not face the double whammy of being subjected to a national allocation plan and a European Union emissions trading scheme?

Mike O'Brien: The Government believe that the provisions of the climate change agreements satisfy the temporary exclusion criteria that allow installations to opt out of phase 1 of the EU emissions trading scheme. We are working with companies to reach agreement on how to put forward various proposals to the EU to allow certain exclusions. Obviously, the final allocations cannot be made until the Commission and the comitology committee have made a decision. We have, however, informed operators that they should monitor emissions from 1 January 2005, in case approval is not given. I take the hon. Lady's point, however, and when we return to Government in due course, I shall be happy to discuss with her the problems in her constituency.

Eric Illsley: May I reinforce that last point on climate change agreements and emissions controls by referring to the glass industry? I urge my hon. Friend to consider the precarious competitive position of that industry, which is subject to emissions limits under the climate change agreement. Will he ensure that he takes no action on emissions agreements that will dent the industry's competitiveness any further?

Mike O'Brien: If we are to deal with global warming and climate change, there will be implications for industry. Those implications will, however, stretch right across the EU and, we hope, across the wider world as well in due course. All of those areas will have to take steps to deal with emissions. We are watching with great care to see how the ETS and the climate change agreements will operate, to ensure that the UK maintains its competitiveness. That will apply to the glass industry as well.

Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister confirm that Britain was unable to take part in the EU emissions trading scheme when it began operating on 1 January 2005 because his Government got the national allocation plan wrong? Will he also confirm that the Government have had to go to the Commission on bended knee to try to change the allocation to make it less damaging to British industry and that the Commission has said no? Who is going to take responsibility for this mistake?

Mike O'Brien: I will not confirm the nonsense that the hon. Gentleman has just spouted. The Government propose to issue the allocation of 736 million allowances—which has already been approved by the Commission—as soon as possible to allow the operators of UK installations covered by the scheme to start participating fully, as they wish to do.
	There is an argument over 20 million of the allocations. Those relate to one specific sector—energy generation—because we have allocated the rest of industry on the basis of its projected needs. Therefore, although one sector will be affected, it is not subject to substantial international competition and we believe that it will be able to deal with that. We also believe that we have a strong case and we are prepared to take it to the European Court of Justice if that should prove necessary.

George Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that even people who have been around as long as I have can change their mind? When I was on the energy review committee, as a former nuclear sceptic, I came to the view that we can achieve our emissions targets and a balanced energy policy only if we replace our existing nuclear capacity. When will the Government grasp the nettle and take a decision on that?

Mike O'Brien: We wait for those companies that want to make a viable economic proposition to build a nuclear reactor. If they came forward, we would have an open mind on the issue. We have been very clear about that. We have said that we would publish a White Paper and hold a widespread consultation, but I have to tell my right hon. Friend and the many supporters of nuclear power generation in the House that at this point there is not an economic case that is causing companies to come forward and volunteer to build a nuclear reactor. If that should change, we would have an open mind.

Small Business

Archie Norman: What steps she is taking to promote small business growth.

Nigel Griffiths: Many small businesses are the economic dynamos of our economy and to promote small business growth, among other things, we raised the VAT threshold to the highest in Europe, abolished automatic fines for late payment for 200,000 small businesses, introduced a flat-rate VAT scheme to cut red tape for up to 700,000 small and medium-sized enterprises, and abolished corporation tax for 150,000 businesses. Our Phoenix fund has helped more than 89,000 people from disadvantaged areas to start and grow SMEs, and our nine regional venture capital funds have made 199 investments, totalling £37 million.

Archie Norman: Since this is the last chance that I will have to do so, may I gently remind the Minister that the biggest gift that this Government can give to small business is to reduce the burden of regulation that has increased so much under them? Has he noticed that the Chancellor has committed to implement in full the Arculus report, which includes the principle of regulatory budgets and a one in, one out principle for new regulation, yet the Secretary of State has already committed, if re-elected, to new regulations that will cost small business up to £200 million to £300 million in additional regulatory burdens, according to her own Department's impact assessments? Which equivalent regulations do the Government plan to withdraw?

Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Member is leaving the House, and the House will be the poorer for losing somebody with business experience. We all wish him well.
	Yes, of course, we have read the Arculus report. As the Secretary of State and the Chancellor have made clear, elements of it are being examined and are being implemented—in fact, the bulk of the recommendations—but I do not take lessons from the party that introduced 51,599 regulations. The important thing is that the way we have tackled regulations means that a record number of small businesses started in Britain last year, and the survival rates are the best for a decade. Last year, 445,000 businesses were started. That is more than 1,000 businesses for every working day. We are the party of business growth.

Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Northwest Development Agency, and indeed development agencies generally, have an important role to play? Are not business growth and small businesses encouraged by actions that they are taking in many places in the country, including the former Michelin site in Burnley, which is being brought back into use for small businesses?

Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate for his area and for business and jobs growth as well. We will certainly be sorry to lose him and wish him well. He is right about the important role played by the regional development agencies and the importance of the support they receive from the DTI, which, under the Conservative party, would be abolished, with all the threat to jobs and growth that that would bring about.

Henry Bellingham: Our plan is not to abolish the DTI but to set up a department for business that will focus on entrepreneurship and on really helping small businesses.
	As this is the last DTI questions before the election, may I say what a pleasure it has been to shadow the hon. Gentleman? Although we disagree on regulation and despite the fact that he has not answered the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), he has been a doughty champion of small businesses and we admire his energy.
	What has happened to the National Audit Office value-for-money report on the Small Business Service, which the NAO assures me has been finished and is awaiting clearance by the Secretary of State? Will it be cleared before the election?

Nigel Griffiths: The NAO is a much respected organisation. It spends a great deal of time on its reports and makes many thoughtful points, and it would be wrong of any Minister to jump to hasty conclusions. The report is being studied in detail and I am sure that it will inform Government policy when we come back after the election.

Balance of Trade

Teddy Taylor: What the latest estimate is of the UK balance of trade for 2004–05; and what the balance of trade with the EU was in the same period.

Jacqui Smith: The Government do not produce forecasts on a geographical basis. The latest official figures, published at the time of the Budget, for the UK's total balance of trade in goods and services in 2004 show a deficit representing 3.3 per cent. of GDP. The Treasury forecasts that that will fall to between 3 and 3.1 per cent. of GDP by 2007.

Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that, in the 34 years that have passed since I resigned from the Government—before she was born—over the decision to join the EU, which we were told would improve trade dramatically, I have been watching for that improvement? I was horrified when I phoned up the House of Commons Library this morning and was told that, in 2004, our deficit in trade in goods and services with the rest of the world was £6.4 billion, but with the European Union it was £32.5 billion, which means that the European part accounts for 84 per cent. of our deficit. Is not that an horrific figure and should not the Government think carefully before getting more involved in an enterprise that has brought us an horrendous trade deficit?

Jacqui Smith: I offer the hon. Gentleman my best wishes for what comes next. I have happy memories of our time together on the Treasury Committee and I have always been impressed by his independence of mind and his diligence in representing his constituents. He is, of course, famous—even notorious—for his views on Europe, but perhaps I can give him a little reassurance today. One of the reasons for the figures he cites is that the beneficial levels of growth that we in the UK have experienced compared with other parts of the EU mean that opportunities for UK exporters in Europe are somewhat reduced. In addition, I hope that he will be reassured to learn that, although the EU trade deficit in December last year was £2.4 billion, in January this year it had decreased to £2.2 billion.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

The Minister for Women was asked—

Work-Life Balance

Michael Fabricant: What her policy is on work-life balance and opportunities for employment for women.

Patricia Hewitt: Through the measures that the Government have introduced, women—and men—now have more choice and support than ever before to balance work and home life in ways that benefit employees, their families and employers. The UK now has the highest levels of employment ever, with women making up more than 45 per cent. of the work force.

Michael Fabricant: I have heard that the right hon. Lady is a great fan of Lauren Bacall and has seen every single one of her movies. Has she read the article in the Daily Mail headlined, "You can't have a husband and a career, says Bacall"? Does she agree with Lauren Bacall, will she continue to watch her movies and what does her husband have to say about it?

Patricia Hewitt: I have seen the headline as well as the movies. It reminds me of my first job interview many years ago, when the interviewer, who was a woman, asked me whether my husband minded my working. I said, "No, and I don't mind him working either."

Meg Munn: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many women choose to achieve work-life balance by setting up their own enterprises. However, there is still an insufficient number of women doing so, despite good examples such as diva, an enterprise run by women in my city. What can the Department do to ensure that more women take that step and have the confidence to run businesses, because they often prove to be excellent at doing so?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. I am pleased that the number of women who have taken the step of setting up their own businesses has grown significantly in the past few years. It remains the case that fewer women in Britain are starting up businesses compared with the proportion of women doing so in the United States. Indeed, if we could close that entrepreneurship gap 100,000 more new businesses would start up in Britain every year. Through the Phoenix fund, the Business Link network and women's business clubs we are making that investment and giving support so that more women will take the step into self-employment by setting up and growing their own business.

Sandra Gidley: I should celebrate the last women's questions of this Parliament by sticking up for men, because their work-life balance is important too. The reality for many families is that men work full-time and that women often choose to work part-time. The pay gap is 46 per cent., so it make financial sense for the men in such families to go out to work rather than the women. The Government have signally failed to tackle that aspect of the pay gap, which is extremely disappointing. Can the Minister tell us what she has done to address the problem?

Patricia Hewitt: The first thing that we did was introduce the national minimum wage, which has almost eliminated the pay gap for low-paid workers. With tax credits on top, that has made an enormous difference to women, particularly lone mothers, who work part-time, as they can now secure a living wage for themselves and their children. We have ensured that part-time workers receive full-time rights—a hugely important step that was opposed, I seem to recall, by the Conservative Opposition—and through our new laws on flexible working rights we are seeking to make sure that part-time working is not confined to low-paid, low-skilled, undervalued jobs but is available all the way up to the most senior, well-paid jobs. By making sure that men as well as women have more choice and control over their working hours, not only will we make it easier for both fathers and mothers to balance work and family but we will reduce, then eliminate the pay gap.

Vera Baird: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on setting up the women and work commission. I pay great tribute to her and the Prime Minister for appreciating the complexity of the pay gap and setting up Baroness Prosser's commission to try to get to the root of a very difficult problem. Can she confirm that the next Labour Government will act on the recommendations of Baroness Prosser's report so that female talents can be properly used and rewarded?

Patricia Hewitt: I am delighted with the progress of the women and work commission, which will report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister before the end of the year. I have no doubt at all that we will want to act on its recommendations, The commission is looking at the underlying causes of the pay gap, particularly the different choices that girls and young women make about the subjects that they study and the training that they undertake. Well over 90 per cent. of hairdressing apprenticeships, for instance, are taken by women, but well over 90 per cent. of engineering apprenticeships are taken by men. Those young women do not have any information at all about the pay consequences of their choices. We must tackle those underlying problems if we are going to make the progress that we all want to make to eliminate the pay gap.

Martin Smyth: May I first thank you, Mr. Speaker, for defending the rights of Back Benchers in minority parties?
	I wish to press the Minister on single women who have carried a load through life and have often been forgotten about in carrying responsibility for aged parents and others. Does she share my concern about job sharing, particularly in Departments where there does not seem to be a working arrangement for sharing knowledge, so that people who are looking for information find it difficult to get it?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. Across government, we have been doing a great deal more to support the single women and others who have a caring responsibility for elderly parents or adult disabled children. That includes the introduction of the state second pension, for instance, which will protect the pensions of women in that position for periods when they have had such family responsibilities. We have ensured that job sharing and other part-time work opportunities are available, certainly in my own Department and across government. As he will know, we are consulting on the possible extension of our very successful flexible working laws beyond parents of young children to people caring for older relatives.

Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the fact that evidence is emerging that women in middle management are now out-performing and out-earning many men. Surely, that is partly down to the pioneering work done by her and the DTI. Is she also aware, however, that when the Institute for Fiscal Studies was assessing how much money students pay back, it pointed out that female students would pay back very little over the period involved because they would be earning such low wages over their lifetime? While there are signs of very good things happening, we still face some problems and the battle goes on.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right that the battle goes on. Women in middle management are doing exceedingly well, which is a tribute to their efforts. Women students at school—and we are beginning to see the same thing at university—are out-performing their male counterparts. The reality is that when the majority of graduates in law, medicine, accountancy and many other subjects are women, we need to ensure that those women can make the full contribution that their skills will allow, for the sake not only of them and their families, but of our economy as a whole. I assure him that we on the Labour Benches at least will continue to do everything in our power to ensure that equal opportunities are available to women and men throughout the country.

Eleanor Laing: I congratulate the Minister on her original answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). Does she agree that there is one profession in which women and men are not represented in equal numbers—our very own profession as Members of Parliament? Since this might well be the very last question of this Parliament, does she share with me the happy anticipation that, when my party occupies the Government Benches in only a few weeks' time, there will be more than 40 women on our side, while on the Labour Opposition side there will be fewer than 60 women and the Liberal Democrats will be lucky if they have just one? Does she agree that we must all keep working to ensure that we have more and more women as Members of Parliament?

Patricia Hewitt: I congratulate the hon. Lady. Indeed, I commiserate with her on the efforts that she and the very small number of women on the Opposition Benches have been making to try to persuade their party to select more women candidates. I am sure that she agrees that it is a great pity that her party has already—indeed, it did so before the election campaign started—deselected three of its feisty women candidates. Apparently, they were too feisty for the men in their constituency associations. We were the Government who introduced the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to enable any political party that so chose to take positive action to ensure proper representation of the women of our country in Parliament and other elected offices. I am proud of the fact that our party took advantage of that Act to take such positive action. I regret that the Opposition parties did not do so.
	Since this is the final question of the Session, may I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your unfailing courtesy in presiding over our proceedings, and may I ask you whether we will now get a chance to sing "Jerusalem"?

Mr. Speaker: I can think of better songs.

Points of Order

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many Members on both sides of the House have been worried by a challenge to what we think are fundamental rights of parliamentarians. I refer to the predicament of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). I have raised this as a point of order as it has seemed impossible to raise the matter in the House. I have spoken to your office and others have tried to raise the issue, as this is a matter that goes to the heart of parliamentarians' independence, representation and what we do in the House, yet it seems that it cannot be raised under the Orders and rules of the House. Surely there is something wrong when a matter that goes to the core of representation and the independence of parliamentarians cannot be raised in this manner?

David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition will probably not believe me, but had this happened to one of my Labour colleagues, I would raise the matter at a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party and, if necessary, even though my own party was involved, with you. What concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and me, and surely many people, is that as a result of a speech made outside the House—so it is clearly not a matter of privilege—a Member of Parliament has been denied the opportunity of standing for his party in the general election—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

David Winnick: Although I must concede, I suppose, that, as Speaker of the House of Commons, you cannot do anything about it, it seems to me that this is a threat to Members of Parliament. If it can happen to one Member, it can happen to other Members of Parliament. Although Opposition Members were heckling, I accept that it could even happen on this side. It is a fundamental element of parliamentary democracy that a Member of Parliament should be able to speak his mind without such action being taken, which has deprived the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight)—with whose views, obviously, I totally disagree—of the opportunity of being in the House unless he stands as an independent, which, as a loyal Conservative, he does not wish to do. Can you make any comment that would help parliamentary democracy in this respect?

Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have had an opportunity to consider the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which examined the whole issue of complaints of privilege. We understand that the precise circumstances in question might not come within the remit of the work done by that Committee, on which I served on the House's behalf, but anything that prevents a Member of Parliament from doing his duty to his constituents—which seems to be the case, setting aside the precise circumstances at the moment—reduces the validity of the position that the Member of Parliament holds. I wonder whether you have been able to take legal advice, or whether that might apply to this situation and the points already made?

Mr. Speaker: Let me try to answer those points of order. May I say that I have the highest regard for the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight)? Ever since he came into the House, I have found him most courteous and a very good parliamentarian. May I say to the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Walsall, North (David Winnick) that I well remember the black days when there was mandatory reselection, and at that time I was a member of the parliamentary Labour party. It was very cruel that Members of Parliament had to leave their constituency and cease to be candidates for no good reason other than vindictiveness. I am not saying that that is the case with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, but that was the case in the 1980s.
	What I can say, as Speaker of the House, is that there is no question of privilege, and that this is not a matter that can be raised in the House. It must be raised with the individual parliamentary parties involved—with the 1922 Committee, and with the Conservative or Labour party. It is not a matter for the Chair. I am sorry that I can say no more than that.

Barry Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I really must ask you for clarification. I know that you have been taking legal advice on this. Why can we not talk about such a fundamental issue in Parliament? It seems to us to bring the House into ridicule when we cannot discuss an attack on the fundamental right of a parliamentarian to speak his mind—in this case, someone with a proven record of being a loyal member of a party, who has done nothing wrong as far as any of us can see, although we may disagree with his views. Yet, because of some obscure, ancient rule, we in this House with 659 Members cannot discuss this matter.

Mr. Speaker: That is not the case. The hon. Gentleman raised the matter on a point of order, and what I told him was that it could not be discussed on a point of order. There are ways of raising the matter, however, and it can be debated in the House. The hon. Gentleman asked me to make a ruling. I am the custodian of the rules of the House, and there is nothing that I can do under the rules of the House; but to say that the matter cannot be discussed in Parliament is inaccurate.
	The hon. Gentleman said that I had taken advice on the matter. Obviously I have taken advice, and it is good advice. The best advice that I myself can give now is that we should move on to the next business.

BILLS PRESENTED

Climate Change

Mr. Michael Meacher, supported by Mr John Gummer and Norman Baker, presented a Bill to combat climate change by setting annual targets for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions until 2050; to place duties on the Prime Minister regarding the reporting on and achievement of those targets; to specify procedures to be followed if the targets are not met; to specify certain functions of and provide certain powers to Members of Parliament with regard to ensuring carbon dioxide emissions are reduced; to set sectoral reduction targets and targets for energy efficiency, the generation of energy from renewable sources, combined heat and power and microgeneration; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 11 April, and to be printed [Bill 112].

Electricity (Microgeneration)

Alan Simpson, supported by Mr. Andrew Stunell, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Dr. Desmond Turner, Sue Doughty, Joan Walley, Mr. David Drew, Norman Baker, Mr. Simon Thomas, Vera Baird, Mr. Kerry Pollard and Peter Bottomley, presented a Bill to promote microgeneration of electricity and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 113].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Speaker: I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 57. If the House agrees to those amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 4
	 — 
	Establishment of Serious Organised Crime Agency

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 12, 41, 42 and 48 to 56.

Caroline Flint: It may help our deliberations if I say immediately that I shall be advising the House to accept all the amendments made in the other place. In most cases I shall urge the House to accept the amendments with alacrity, given that they were Government amendments. In one instance, however—the provisions on incitement to religious hatred—I shall, with heavy heart, invite the House to agree with the Lords amendments. We shall come to that in a while; suffice it to say that we agreed to remove the incitement provisions only in the interest of securing the passage of the rest of this important legislation.
	All the amendments in this group relate to part 1. Clause 10 would have given the Home Secretary a power to direct the Serious Organised Crime Agency to set itself targets to measure how well its performance fulfilled any strategic priorities determined by the Home Secretary under clause 9. That would have added to SOCA's accountability. Nevertheless, both here and in the other place the Conservative party expressed concern about the perceived political influence of the Home Secretary over SOCA. In the interests of securing consensus on the SOCA measures, we agreed that clause 10 need not stand part of the Bill. After all, the SOCA board would itself want to establish a robust performance management and assessment regime.
	In the same vein, I commend the amendments to clauses 18 and 19. The amendments would also have the effect of reducing any alleged political interference in the affairs of SOCA. They remove the Home Secretary's ability to attach conditions to the payments of grants to SOCA, thereby giving the agency greater flexibility in apportioning its funds to meet the unique challenges of tackling serious organised crime in the 21st century. On the other hand, the amendment to clause 17 will ensure, reasonably, that were the Home Secretary to request Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary to inspect SOCA wholly or partly in Scotland, he must consult Scottish Ministers before doing so.
	Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 and 52 deal with the prosecution of offences investigated by SOCA and ensure that SOCA has access to the best possible legal advice during a criminal investigation and that the most appropriate prosecutor can be assigned to take a case to court. The new clauses inserted by the amendments extend the functions of the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office, the new prosecution body that is to replace the Customs and Excise Prosecution Office, so that it may also institute and conduct criminal proceedings that arise out of a criminal investigation by SOCA. That will ensure, in line with the Attorney-General's wishes, that the skills and experience that have been built both within the Crown Prosecution Service and CEPO in prosecuting serious organised crime are available to SOCA. The new clauses also provide for the issue of joint directions by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions, setting down criteria for determining which prosecutor will take responsibility for any given case initiated by SOCA. Amendments Nos. 10 and 52 make technical, consequential amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 12, 48 to 50 and 53 to 56 are straightforward and deal with the area of discrimination legislation as applied to persons seconded to SOCA. The sentiments behind the amendments were brought to our attention by the Police Federation, to which we are grateful. The amendments bring into one place under a single clause the discrimination legislation to provide that SOCA is liable for any act done by it in relation to persons seconded to the agency, as well as anything done by such persons in the performance or purported performance of their functions. They also expressly provide that SOCA is liable for any discriminatory acts committed by any of its secondees, be they constables or other persons.
	Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 give effect to the one recommendation in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report on part 1, namely, that the order-making power in clause 50 should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	Amendment No. 51, which was necessary in light of the Road Safety Bill's not securing Royal Assent this Session, will allow SOCA to be included in the provisions that exempt emergency vehicles from speed limits where it is necessary in the pursuit of their functions. Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which makes that exemption, will not automatically extend to SOCA, as the agency will not be a police body pursuing police purposes. The provision includes safeguards limiting the exemption to SOCA staff who are carrying out the purposes of the agency and to those who are undergoing training to do so and covering only those vehicles driven by someone who has had training to drive at high speeds.
	I hope that I have outlined the Government's thinking and given an explanation of the deliberations in the other place.

Andrew Mitchell: May I, in the spirit of the words of the Minister, say that the Opposition agree with these amendments and therefore we will not vote against any of them? I do not think that that will come as much of a surprise to her. She is aware from the words of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), that we largely agree with the Bill. Our reservations were on the issue of religious hatred. As she says, we will come to that issue shortly.
	We largely support the Bill. The Minister will confirm that it has been constructively debated in Committee and in both Houses. I believe that it has been improved. It has not had added to it the constructive approach that we took on intercept evidence. That has been debated in both Houses and there have been differences of view across the political parties. We regret the fact that that provision has not been included. We also regret that the provision for 24-hour fully manned surveillance and embarkation controls at our ports, which would have brought a big improvement to immigration and customs, has not been added to the Bill, although, as the Minister will be aware, that is a Conservative pledge in the forthcoming election. Had it been included in the Bill, it would have greatly improved it.
	I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for outlining what the amendments will achieve. In Committee, Opposition Members were keen that the agency should have operational independence and that the Home Secretary should not be able to set performance targets. We fully accepted that the Home Secretary should be able to set targets in respect of strategic performance, but not performance targets. These amendments accept our arguments.
	Amendment No. 12 concerns an important issue that touches on the role of constables. The Under-Secretary knows that there was disagreement in Committee and on the Floor of the House and we remain concerned that the Bill could undermine the role of the constable. She will have heard the words of the Police Federation and we are disappointed that the words of the Conservative party and of the federation appear to have fallen on deaf ministerial ears.
	The Under-Secretary has explained what the new clause is designed to do. I am grateful to her for that and, on that basis, we accept the amendments.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 58
	 — 
	Offences to which this Chapter applies

Lords amendment: No. 13.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may consider Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 26, 46 and 57.

Caroline Flint: Again, these are mostly minor and technical amendments that relate to parts 3 and 4 of the Bill. However, I should like to bring the following amendments to the attention of the House. On powers of arrest, the amendments to schedule 7 and 18 simply make further consequential amendments and repeals in respect of existing powers of arrest made redundant by the new framework in clause 106. In relation to the identification of the British tsunami casualties, dealt with in amendments Nos. 27 and 44, the House will be aware—[Interruption.]
	In terms of compulsory investigative powers, in clause 58, amendments Nos. 13 to 21 create a threshold of £5,000 for certain financial offences that must be met before disclosure notices may be used. These offences include those listed under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and the Theft Act 1968. This will ensure that the powers introduced by chapter 1 of part 2 of the Bill will be used proportionately to tackle only the most serious offences.
	In relation to Queen's evidence, in clause 71, amendment No. 25 inserts a new clause that ensures that any hearing to vary a sentence following an agreement by the defendant to turn Queen's evidence can be held in camera, or subject to reporting restrictions, where the court considers it necessary to protect any person from harm and it is in the interests of justice. The issue was helpfully brought to our attention by the Lord Chief Justice.

Peter Bottomley: The House will understand what the Under-Secretary has just said, but can she give an assurance that any defendant will know that the scales may be turned against him? For example, if two people are accused and one turns Queen's evidence and has a session with the judge in private, will that be unnecessarily prejudicial to the other defendant, although clearly the evidence will be given properly in court?

Caroline Flint: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the measure, requested by the Lord Chief Justice, was aimed at certain situations where it might be prejudicial to the person giving evidence if that were in open court. I hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are trying to make Queen's evidence more transparent than ever before so that, for prosecution and defence purposes, justice can be seen to be served. If he requires any detail on that point, I would be happy to write to him, but having a transparent system takes us a long way forward.
	Clause 75 originally provided that the reports made by an offender under a financial reporting order must be at fixed intervals throughout the course of the order. The Lord Chief Justice was helpful in his suggestion and, as a consequence, amendment No. 26 would provide the sentencer with the flexibility to set different levels between reports. The change builds in a helpful degree of flexibility in the operation of these orders.
	I apologise to the House for losing my place at the start of this section.

Peter Bottomley: Is the Under-Secretary capable of understanding why the periods of punishment in clause 75(10) are different in different parts of the UK?

Caroline Flint: My understanding is that the amendment was aimed at giving some flexibility. For example, financial reporting orders can operate when someone is in prison and the time between reporting orders may be different depending on when someone is released from prison. I am happy to look at that particular issue for the hon. Gentleman and get back to him.

Peter Bottomley: For the sake of clarity for those who may read our proceedings, which may not amount to a very large number, imprisonment on summary conviction is liable to a term of 51 weeks in England and Wales, 12 months in Scotland—a difference of a week—and six months in Northern Ireland. That is an odd consequence of devolution. I do not necessarily expect the Under-Secretary to be able to answer in detail now, but I think that the inconsistency will look rather peculiar.

Caroline Flint: As the hon. Gentleman says, devolution creates different systems. We discussed this in Committee at some length and we must recognise and live with it.
	I have nothing more to add on this subject. As I said, at one point I lost my place, but apparently not many Members realised. [Laughter.]

Andrew Mitchell: Let me reassure the Under-Secretary that we on this side of the House were very much aware that she had lost her place and, indeed, were rather concerned that we might have been focusing on the wrong amendment ourselves, which is very easily done at this level of detail.
	As the Under-Secretary said, these amendments follow the debates in another place yesterday. We very much agree that, in respect of qualifying offences, the relevant offence must be of a value of £5,000 or above. That is the right level before a disclosure notice can kick in and was argued for eloquently in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). We accept the amendments.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 113
	 — 
	Fingerprints

Lords amendment: No. 27.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendments Nos. 29 to 35, 43, 44, 58 to 78 and 87 to 101.

Caroline Flint: I have already said that the amendments to schedules 7 and 18 simply make further consequential amendments and repeals in respect of existing powers of arrest made redundant by the new framework in clause 106. Amendments Nos. 27 and 44 are intended to deal with a particular problem that we faced in the aftermath of the Asian tsunami with the identification of British casualties. As hon. Members are aware, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 22 March that we currently estimate that there were 169 British casualties of the tsunami who were either killed in the disaster or who remain unaccounted for. We believe that it may be possible to identify a small number of those victims by cross-checking DNA samples and fingerprints taken from the deceased against the national DNA and fingerprint databases. These amendments would enable such checks to take place.
	I am sure that the House would agree that we should do all that we can to help the relatives and friends of the victims of this terrible natural disaster by speeding up the identification of those victims by whatever means possible. I make it clear to the House that the amendments are not specific to the tsunami and would enable samples from any unidentified body to be checked against the national DNA and fingerprint databases for identification purposes.
	The amendments to schedule 8 are designed to ensure that chief officers have greater flexibility when conferring powers on community support officers. As the provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002 are currently constructed, where a chief officer confers a power on a CSO to require a person's name and address, he must also confer on that CSO a power to detain for up to 30 minutes pending the arrival of a constable. We believe that chief officers should be able to confer the power to require name and address without the power to detain. These amendments provide such flexibility so that CSO powers can be tailored to meet local needs under the direction of chief officers.
	The other matter that I bring to the attention of the House relates to Parliament square. It was evident on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report that there was passionate feeling on the issue on both sides of the House. [Interruption] Yes, there was passion from you as well, Mr. Speaker. Whether hon. Members are for or against what we are proposing to do, they cannot deny that there has been a great deal of discussion about it.
	We have tried to listen to concerns. We still believe that, for the reasons that we have outlined in numerous debates, we have to move forward to deal with the area appropriately. I reiterate what I have said on many occasions: we are not trying to prevent people from protesting, and we are certainly not trying to stop them doing it in Parliament square, but we think that there should be a framework of conditions. We are aware of the concerns about notification and those about Trafalgar square.
	As Baroness Scotland assured those in the other place, in exercising the order-making power in clause 135 we will ensure that Trafalgar square is excluded. As a result, demonstrations could continue there without the need for prior notification of the Commissioner.

Paul Tyler: Why will this matter be left to ministerial discretion? Why cannot the Bill firmly state that the distance to Trafalgar square is specific, and the square will always be available for the sort of traditional demonstrations we have all experienced over the years? I am sure that the Minister has taken part in important demonstrations there, and certainly many of her colleagues have done so. Why cannot we make the provision specific, instead of leaving the question to the discretion of future Ministers? One day there may be a Minister from another party who is less open-minded on the issue than the hon. Lady and her colleagues.

Caroline Flint: There is an order-making power, so the matter will return to the House. The hon. Gentleman is right: I have taken part in numerous demonstrations over the years. However, I also remember only too well when I was not allowed to demonstrate in Parliament square but was stuck on the other side of Westminster bridge and not allowed to go any further. We should acknowledge that the opportunity to demonstrate in Parliament square is not particularly old, and that we are trying to ensure that that right still exists. The commissioner will not be able to refuse anyone the right to demonstrate in Parliament square, but conditions will be attached. That has been made clear both in correspondence and discussion, in Committee and in the other place.
	Amendment No. 30 responds to the concerns expressed by hon. Members on Report in February about the requirement to give at least six days' notice of any demonstration. We recognise that there should be provision for a shorter notice period in exceptional circumstances. The amendment therefore provides that where it is impracticable to give six days' notice, notification may be given not less than 24 hours before the start time of the demonstration.
	Amendment No. 35 allows the Metropolitan police to give authorisation for a demonstration by fax or e-mail if organisers agree. This is particularly relevant if an organiser is unable to give six days' notice for the demonstration.
	The other amendments in this group are minor technical amendments. I hope that what I have said at least demonstrates that, on a hotly debated issue, we have listened and suggested amendments. The fact that the House of Lords, where there was also strong feeling about this issue, accepted them shows what progress we have made on this issue of concern.

Andrew Mitchell: This is a sensible group of amendments and I need not detain the House for long. I just want to pick up on two points that the Minister made. The first is about amendment No. 30, which deals with Parliament square. Although there are passionate views on both sides of the argument on both sides of the House, the debate was informed by a Select Committee report. There was a unanimous view in the Committee that something needed to be done about the situation—if I may describe it in that neutral way—outside the Carriage Gates in Parliament square.
	We support the thrust of amendment No. 30 and accept that in normal circumstances six days' notice is not unreasonable, but where it is unreasonable, 24 hours is the right period. We are grateful to the Government for accepting that argument, which we put clearly in Committee.
	I turn now to amendment No. 64. We have some doubts about the drafting, but we are inevitably concerned, as we said in Committee, about what I would call function creep for police community support officers. We want to emphasise that while we do not oppose the amendments, we think it essential that proper detailed independent analysis be done on the work that CSOs carry out; any form of function creep without that proper evaluation is unwise, and in that case the Government should think again. With that small reservation, we are happy to support the amendments.

John McDonnell: I welcome the amendments, but in doing so I still find it dispiriting that on the last day of this parliamentary Session we are restricting our constituents' rights to demonstrate in Parliament square. I accept that the amendments will make demonstrating easier than the Government originally intended. We look forward to the details of the order that will ensure that Trafalgar square is not included in this legislation in a way that would allow future Governments, perhaps capriciously advised by the police, to restrict demonstrations there.
	In most of the debates, people have detailed their experiences of demonstrating in Parliament square and Trafalgar square, but I have not yet done so. We all have a bit of form on these matters. I have been arrested on demonstrations in both Trafalgar square and Parliament square, and on both occasions I was not prosecuted. In fact, on one occasion I was represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), and I received compensation from the Metropolitan police for wrongful arrest. I just wanted to get my form on the record as well. [Interruption.] I heard from the Whips some form of expression of regret that I was not detained for longer, and I can appreciate that.
	In interpreting this legislation we must be clear that the proposals may in some way limit the right to demonstrate in Parliament square. As the Minister said—it needs reiterating—no police officer or Metropolitan Police Commissioner can refuse authority to demonstrate in Parliament square.
	Secondly, there is nothing in the Bill that provides that there is to be a restriction on the number of applications from an individual, or a group of individuals, to demonstrate in Parliament square. The amendments make it reasonably practicable, therefore, for an individual to submit applications on a regular basis, even by fax or e-mail, to demonstrate in Parliament square, so I hope that Brian Haw has obtained a fax machine and has access to e-mail. The amendments enable him or others to submit a series of applications, almost on a daily basis, to enable them to return to Parliament square to demonstrate in a way set out in the proposed legislation, which takes into account the issue of noise.
	I welcome the amendments. I think that they assist the process in which we can say that Brian Haw and others are not going away, and will not be deterred from enabling themselves to demonstrate in Parliament square in future on issues of critical importance, such as Iraq and other matters.

Peter Bottomley: I start where the Minister started, which was with DNA and fingerprint identification of those who may have died. It is worth making the point that under other legislation we should make provision for people voluntarily to provide samples for DNA testing or fingerprints for later identification, for those who are not on the national register. It seems that we are restricting the usefulness to those whose fingerprints or DNA may be held on the national register—but that register will not contain everyone in the country. I am not saying that that should be compulsory, but we should make provision so that for whatever purpose may be useful in future, people can say, "I would like my samples and my fingerprints to be available where necessary." It is a point for the future. I welcome the provision made so far. The House will note that the Minister said that this is not only for the tsunami disaster but for other occasions—we cannot anticipate what they would be.
	The ability to demonstrate is important. Indeed, it is vital, but I am a traditionalist in that I was brought up with the idea that there could not be placards too close to the Houses of Parliament, and that demonstrations would break off when they came past Parliament. It would be better if we returned to that situation. There is the question of transition. The noisy encampment that we have had outside Parliament has not been a blessing. The fact is that it has happened. The sooner we can ensure that people can protest in a way that does not cause health and safety problems for those who service this place, and the general public, the better. If it is goodbye Mr. Haw, then goodbye.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 124
	 — 
	Hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds

Lords amendment: No. 28.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendment No. 79.

Caroline Flint: Clause 124 and schedule 10 are fundamentally about protecting vulnerable communities and closing an inequality in law that is exploited by those who seek to cause damage to those communities. By introducing incitement to religious hatred, we sought to deliver justice and fairness to members of all faiths, and I am sorely disappointed that the Opposition parties in the other place have chosen not to support the provision.
	There is no ulterior motive for introducing the proposed offence. We have been committed to doing so for some time. In fact, it was considered as early as 1986, when it was rejected because there was not felt to be a problem to address at the time. We introduced an almost identical offence in 2001, shortly after 11 September and the disturbances in Bradford and Burnley. That was rejected because it was felt that the provision should not be included in an anti-terrorism Bill.
	We have, however, remained committed to providing the protection needed since 2001. We listened carefully to the consideration of evidence by the House of Lords Select Committee, when the police informed the Committee that the offence could have helped to prevent the disturbances in Bradford and Burnley. We listened carefully when a wide range of faith communities twice asked us to extend the protection now available only to Jews and Sikhs, to ensure equity of protection in law. We tried to respond to that call. Other support has come from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Commission for Racial Equality, Justice, the Law Society and many other organisations.
	To move forward on this issue, we replicated the offence of incitement to racial hatred, which for nearly 20 years has provided protection for Jews and Sikhs, without being misused or placing unnecessary restrictions on free speech. I am baffled by those who oppose the offence on the ground of its so-called loose wording. Clause 124 uses exactly the same wording as the provision that protects Jews and Sikhs already. I am equally baffled by those who would argue that Jews and Sikhs should have greater protection in law than Muslims, Hindus, Christians or Buddhists, despite the evidence from the police and the faith communities.
	The only restrictions that we have seen as a result of the incitement to racial hatred offence are those that have helped to change our culture for the better. The offence has helped to set boundaries around what is acceptable behaviour and language in our society.
	Clause 124 and schedule 10 are a crucial test of the society that we want to create. By supporting the Government's proposals, the Opposition parties would have sent a clear message about society's disapproval of those who abuse the loophole in the law to promote hatred of others because of their faith. Such behaviour has no place in modern Britain.

David Winnick: For reasons that I stated at the time, I supported the clause to which my hon. Friend is referring. Does she agree that in practice it would not have meant that one could not criticise a religion or criticise religious practices? Like a number of Members, I have no faith, but I have recalled on a number of occasions the fact that we can affirm, because of Charles Bradlaugh, who was four times refused the right to take his seat because he had no religion. As what has been proposed would in no way ban criticism of religion—which I do not want to engage in, but which I would not challenge the right of others to express—it is difficult to understand why there should be such criticism of trying to protect people who do not have the protection that Jews and Sikhs have now.

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend puts the case eloquently. The clause in no way attacks the right of free speech. In no way does it attack the rights of comedians, academics, politicians or anyone else to criticise individual religions. We are trying to protect individuals against whom hatred is incited because of their religious faith. As I have said, we lifted the wording from that in the current law on incitement to racial hatred. That raises the question of how Members of this place, and those in the other place, can support the law on incitement to racial hatred yet not support clause 124. As with incitement to racial hatred, a high threshold is set. There is also the Attorney-General's involvement. That would have applied in this instance, too.
	It is with acute disappointment that we are having to ask the House to agree to remove the provision from the Bill. The unelected House has chosen not to rise to the challenge of what I believe is a fundamental aspect of creating a decent society. The parliamentary timetable means that it will not be possible to insist on the inclusion of the clause without jeopardising the creation of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and other important provisions to tackle crime. I do not believe that that is in anyone's interest.

Peter Bottomley: The Minister is doing what other Ministers do when they are not desperately happy, and chooses to talk about the unelected other place. Will she remind the House of the proportion of the Members of the other place who have been appointed by the Prime Minister?

Caroline Flint: Discussion about the other place and how it should be constituted is not for this afternoon. I say again that Opposition parties in the House and the other place have contributed to the removal of the clause from the Bill. They will to answer for that. However, I reassure my hon. Friends that it remains the Government's firm and clear intention to give people of all faiths the same protection against incitement to hatred on the basis of their religion. We will make sure that that is part of our manifesto in the forthcoming general election.

Andrew Mitchell: We come to one of the most hotly contested aspects of the Bill, but it is not a central aspect, which is why the Minister has moved that we agree with the amendment to remove the clause and schedule dealing with religious hatred. The debate has gone on in the other place and in Committee, and I shall not rehash the arguments that divide us across the House. I shall make just three or four points.
	Let there be no doubt in the mind of the Minister or anyone else that there is agreement in all parts of the House that we need to prevent religious hatred. The issue that divides us is how best to achieve that. My party has consistently supported the anti-discrimination legislation to protect people from being discriminated against in respect of their religion. Our fear is that the Government have not thought through the effect of the measure that they are putting before the House. We made it clear on Second Reading that although we largely supported the Bill, this was one aspect that we could not support.
	The measure would curb free speech. It is outside the fine British traditions of religious tolerance and fierce religious debate, which have characterised the history of our country. We believe that the existing law deals with incitement to violence and words designed to cause alarm, distress or harassment. We remain convinced that the Government are wrong in their contention, and right in the amendments withdrawing the provisions. The best way to deal with evil and intolerant ideas is to confront and defeat them in open debate, not as the Government originally envisaged in the Bill. We support the amendments to remove the misguided provisions from the Bill.

Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to have the opportunity at this late stage in the proceedings on the Bill to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and his colleagues in our home affairs team on having secured a victory for freedom of expression. I am disappointed to hear the Minister say that if returned to office on 5 May, the Labour party would introduce similar legislation in the next Parliament. That seems an extremely good reason to vote Conservative on 5 May, in addition to all the other reasons.
	I did not have a chance to participate in earlier debates on this matter and I shall not rehearse the arguments, but let me say at the outset that it is important that all of us should recognise the sensitivities of others, and that we should not go out of our way to be gratuitously offensive to others. I frequently take offence at things that are said, but I have to bite my lip and move on. The price that one must pay in a free society is that people will occasionally take offence. I am no exception to that.
	I have had quite a few letters from constituents. My mailbag on the issue has been atypical. I have had more letters on this subject than on other issues, from constituents who have been extremely concerned about the implications of the Government's proposal. They will undoubtedly welcome the fact that their lordships were prepared to take a stand and strike the right balance between protecting individual faiths and individual views, and the need to preserve freedom of expression.
	The coalition of people against the measure was pretty wide. The Minister referred to some of them. Rowan Atkinson the comedian, who enjoys enormous support throughout the country, was famously in the forefront of the campaign against it. Academics, journalists, authors, human rights campaigners and many on the Labour Benches expressed concern about the implications of the proposal and the threat that it posed to freedom of expression. It is important to bear in mind that those fears were shared by more than just a narrow group of people.
	Christian groups were certainly concerned. Talking to people, I have found a general view—this is anecdotal evidence and I would not claim that it is backed up by some weighty study—that one can insult Christians with complete impunity, but if one insults those of the Muslim faith in particular, the whole world comes down around one. Let me give the Minister an example—the case of the Sikh play, to which the Sikhs understandably took great exception. There was a fracas in Birmingham when the play was put on, and the play was taken off.
	By contrast, 60,000 people—I was one of them—complained to the BBC about the Jerry Springer programme, and what happened? Absolutely nothing. They were effectively dismissed. I am writing to Michael Grade to say that if the BBC has taken the view that its commitment to taste and decency was not infringed by the Jerry Springer programme, what is the point of the BBC having a taste and decency requirement in its charter? People feel that there is one rule for one group and another rule for others.
	I am sorry that the Minister has accepted the verdict of the country and of the other place slightly less than graciously.

Caroline Flint: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to discuss the issues raised by the play in Birmingham or the Jerry Springer programme, but I wish to correct the hon. Gentleman. The clause deals not with satire or with taking a view against a religion, but with incitement to hatred against someone on the basis of their religious belief. That would include those of the Christian faith. That is the point. Following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, does he believe we should repeal the legislation on incitement to racial hatred?

Gerald Howarth: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. It has been the Government's position that those who make genuine criticisms of different faiths have nothing to fear from the measure. Unfortunately, the assurances given by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) are assurances that he is in no position to deliver. Ministers are in no position to deliver them, either. Once we have enacted the provision, we are in the hands of the authorities.
	The Minister says that there is a defence, in so far as the fiat of the Attorney-General is required. We know that the Attorney-General is a political appointee—I am not making a partisan point—and he is subject to the political climate of the day. There are genuine fears, which I share, that freedom of expression could be challenged. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was right to point to the fact that there is already legislation that could cover the kind of incitement that none of us would support, and against which we all want action to be taken.
	Many people have written to the newspapers and expressed the view that some of the statements from some of the mosques took an awfully long time for the authorities to get to grips with, whereas there was plenty of legislation that could have been invoked to deal with the matter.

Caroline Flint: Following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, I ask him again whether he believes that a future Conservative Government should repeal the legislation on incitement to racial hatred? The same issue applies to that. The wording of this clause is exactly the same as the wording of that legislation. Can he give me one example of the legislation on incitement to racial hatred leading to a clampdown on free speech and discussion about race, or having an adverse effect on comedy or television viewing? My question stands: following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, does he believe that the Conservative party should be committed to repealing the legislation on incitement to racial hatred?

Gerald Howarth: Of course we have no intention of repealing the legislation on incitement to racial hatred. The Minister has missed the point. The opposition to her proposals stems from the belief that the Government are using flawed logic. Religion is significantly different from race. The Barnabas Fund, which has written to me—and, I am sure, many other Members—on this point, notes that religion is a choice that affects attitude and behaviour, while race is not and does not. On that note, I rest my case.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Howarth: I will not, because other Members wish to make a contribution. I am happy to support the Government in supporting the amendments that were successfully moved in another place.

Mark Oaten: This one and a half hour debate is not the time to rehearse the various arguments on the issue. Those arguments have been made many times. I simply make a few remarks on this controversial issue, which has got passions running on all sides.
	I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Government have been trying to achieve in these parts of the Bill. Our objections have not been about the end game—what they are trying to achieve—we simply believe that there are better ways to achieve that. We recognise the seriousness of the issue and we recognise that, for many groups, there is a real sensitivity about what are clear attempts to make racial remarks under the cover of religious remarks. There is a gap that needs to be resolved urgently because it is creating tensions in the community. It is an important issue that needs to be addressed, and we welcome the fact that the Government have sought to do so.
	Our disagreement with the Government has been that this important set of principles and piece of legislation has been tagged on to a big Bill that considers the way in which we organise police forces in this country. We felt that that was an inappropriate way in which to tackle the issue. Our proposal has always been for an equalities Bill, which would tackle many of these issues with a well thought through piece of legislation that dealt with discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
	I hope that in the next three or four weeks we do not have any nonsense from the Government suggesting in certain parts of the country that the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives have been trying to wreck the Bill and do not want to do anything to tackle the problem of religious hatred. That is not the case. We believe that it is a serious issue that needs addressing. However, it should be done properly and robustly via an equalities Bill, which is a way of addressing the issue more effectively. That is what we will argue in the next four weeks.
	Legitimate concerns have been put forward by a number of Members from all parts of the House, and not just by the Rowan Atkinsons of this world, but by organisations such as Liberty and PEN, the writer's organisation. They have raised concerns about the difficult balance between legitimate criticism of a religion and freedom of speech. The issue needs to be addressed, but the way to deal with it, and all the other issues, is not to tag it on to the back of a police Bill but to have a proper, well thought out equalities Bill. That is what we will argue in the next four weeks. The communities that want protection in this area should support an equalities Bill. It would give them the protections that they seek.

Peter Bottomley: I will also upset the Minister by supporting the Government's invitation to us to support the amendment that takes out the clause. She has made some serious points. The Leader of the House and others on the Labour Front Bench ought not to give the impression that they intend to exploit the issue for party political reasons during the next four weeks. Given the list of serious organisations that have doubts about the Bill, whoever is in Government after 5 May should hold an open forum with those groups, and with religious groups, to reach agreement on what is useful and acceptable. I would support what the Minister might have said, which is that the clause does not refer to "Muslims" but treats all religions in the same way. I praise her for that, because it is sensible.
	I end my remarks by saying that I welcome the opposition of the community in Worthing to the recent arson attack on the local Islamic centre. I will not say any more because people may be charged. I support the Islamic centre's open evenings that bring people together about once a month. To those Christians who go there to say that they do not agree with us, I say that it is one of the things about having different religions and even different denominations. It is only a few hundred years since we burnt people at the stake for different interpretations of the same book.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 29 to 35 agreed to.

Clause 142
	 — 
	Interference with Contractual Relationships so as to harm animal research organisation

Lords amendment: No. 36.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendments Nos. 37 to 40, 45, 47 and 80 to 86.

Caroline Flint: The amendments cover three matters. The first is protection of the activities of animal research organisations. Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 relate to the economic damage clauses that we inserted in the Bill on Report in this House.
	Amendment No. 36 responds to comments made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendment narrows the scope of clause 142 by stating specifically that peaceful advocacy of economic actions against companies that are connected to animal research organisations will not trigger an offence. The amendment ensures that an offence can be triggered only by methods of persuasion that are themselves unlawful. That has always been our intention.
	Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 extend the list of persons connected to animal research organisations contained in clause 143 to include funders of research. Funding bodies have been targeted for unlawful actions by animal rights extremists, just as have employees, suppliers and customers of animal research organisations. It is right that funders should have the same protection as other persons connected to animal research organisations.
	I now come to the amendments concerned with road traffic offences. The new clauses inserted by amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are imports from the Road Safety Bill, which will sadly not now be enacted in this Session. The new clauses deal with two matters. The new clause inserted by amendment No. 39 enables the police to have access to insurance industry data relating to vehicles whose use is no longer insured. The second new clause permits police to carry out an evidential breath test not only at a police station but at a hospital or at or near a place such as the roadside where a preliminary breath test has been administered. I think that we can all agree that both measures will contribute to road safety. They were welcomed by all parts of the other place.
	Finally, amendments Nos. 80 to 86 would allow Scottish Ministers to exercise certain delegated powers in the Private Security Industry Act 2001, following its extension to Scotland. In particular, Scottish Ministers will, after consultation with the Home Secretary, have the power to commence the provisions as they apply to Scotland. Additionally, Scottish Ministers will have the power to designate by order which specific sectors of the private security industry in Scotland are to be licensed and when.
	As this is the last group of amendments, I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends and the Front-Bench Conservative spokesmen for their constructive working relationships with us on the Bill. It is an important piece of legislation. It has covered a huge area—serious organised crimes, community support officers, custody officers, money laundering and, importantly, tackling animal rights extremists, an area for which I have had personal responsibility in the Home Office.
	As I said, I am disappointed that the measures on incitement to religious hatred are not going forward. I say to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who represents the Liberal Democrats, that it is a cop-out to say that we need another piece of legislation to deal with something that, as I said before, uses exactly the same wording and has the same intent as did the legislation on incitement to racial hatred. That said, I commend the amendments to the House and hope that the Bill will be enacted as soon as possible.

Andrew Mitchell: We have reached the final group of amendments, and I am grateful to the Minister for outlining what the amendments seek to do.
	We agree that two key clauses have fallen away from the Road Safety Bill, which will not be enacted in this Parliament. The measures to allow the police to secure relevant information from insurance companies and, in particular, to conduct roadside breath tests are important, and they command support on both sides of the House. We are grateful for the assurances in the other place that the police will be properly trained and supported in administering the evidential burdens test.
	The provisions on animal rights campaigners were tweaked in Committee, where the Government listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), who has led for the Conservative party on that issue. Again, we are grateful that the sensible change outlined by the Minister has been made.
	Finally, the Minister referred to the extension of the provisions of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 into Scottish legislation, which is an unexceptional measure. I thought that she and I had had our last outing together on the 2001 Act in Westminster Hall on Tuesday, when we debated bouncers and doorkeepers, but we have returned to it right at the end of this Bill.
	I agree with the Minister that the provisions setting up SOCA are important. As I said earlier, although the Bill was a bit of a Christmas tree Bill, it has been improved significantly, and its central thrust certainly commands my party's support. SOCA will undoubtedly help to tackle the soaring levels of crime in Britain. However, we need far more than SOCA: we need 40,000 extra policemen and women to police our streets; we need less micro-management from the centre; and we need more local accountability. The Bill does not address those issues, but they will no doubt inform the debate over the next four weeks. I believe that those issues are a compelling argument to vote Conservative on 5 May.

Peter Bottomley: I shall confine my remarks to amendments Nos. 39 and 40, and I am pleased that Viscount Simon took the opportunity to add two welcome measures to the Bill giving powers to the police.
	Amendment No. 39 concerns the disclosure of information about the insurance status of vehicles and, by implication, whether a driver is insured to use a particular vehicle. It is a technical change to remove an inhibition, and it is welcome.
	There is a problem with insurance companies that we must face and, again, an open discussion is required. The loadings on insurance premiums for young drivers are now so great that I suspect that a number of parents do not add their children to their insurance policies. Both the additional risk, as calculated by the underwriters, and the fact that it is a good idea for young drivers to be nominated to policies are important, but some insurance companies make it so difficult that some young people and some people who have had trouble with the law—I admit to having experienced such trouble—find themselves making the wrong choice of not being covered. People should be covered, but the level of cover is a matter for debate, and we should return to that issue.
	Amendment No. 40 concerns the power to require specimens of breath at the roadside or in hospital. It is not vital to know whether this point is covered by this clause or some other provision, or whether the Government are minded to introduce a relevant provision. When I was a junior Minister in the Department for Transport, if a blood sample was taken in hospital from someone who had been injured in a crash for blood matching, and if there were grounds for suspecting that that person had been driving while above the legal limit for alcohol, it was not possible to analyse the blood without the patient's consent—I am not sure whether it was possible to analyse it with the patient's consent—to see whether there was prima facie evidence of an offence having been committed. I hope that the Home Office, the Department for Transport and the Department of Health will examine that issue. Failing to give consent in those circumstances should become an automatic offence, like failing to give a blood sample. Clearly, unconscious patients cannot be asked to give their consent.
	Amendment No. 40 provides for less bureaucracy and less movement of people from the roadside to the police station. It contains sufficient protections to prevent the police from using the power to harass people. I am not saying that the police would often do that, but I know of one case in my constituency in which that happened. Amendment No. 40 will not make the situation worse, and it may make things better. It is good for drivers and good for suspects.
	During my three-and-a-half years at the Department for Transport, no motorist ever complained about giving an alcohol or breath test. Some of those motorists were not drinking drivers, in which case the legislation was in their favour. Some were drinking drivers who were below the limit, in which case they had a lucky escape—it was not lucky for us that they were drink-driving. Others were above the limit, in which case there were caught bang to rights.
	Amendment No. 40 is not controversial. The measure is welcome, and I am glad that the Government have accepted it.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 37 to 101 agreed to.

Education Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Stephen Twigg: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am delighted to open this afternoon's Third Reading debate on this fourth Session Education Bill. I apologise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot be with us today. On Second Reading, she set out that improving outcomes for children and learners should be at the heart of everything that our Department does, and that is also at the heart of this Bill. I am pleased that the Bill has met with widespread cross-party support and that it appears likely that it will make it on to the statute book in its entirety.
	It was clear from the rate of progress in Committee that the Bill has created a lot of consensus. I thank those Members of this House and the other place who have contributed to the debates on the Bill and parliamentary counsel for the hard work that has gone into bringing the Bill to fruition. I also thank the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for his excellent chairmanship of the Committee and extend my thanks to the other members of the Committee.
	We can look back with pride on the impressive progress by learners, teachers and others working in education in every community. The Bill establishes the framework that we need to take education forward and to continue to improve standards and extend opportunities for every child.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for generously giving way so soon. The Bill misses the point. The real problems with standards generally in education include the bizarre ways of teaching reading that have crept into our schools over the decades and the fact that 60 per cent. of lessons in our comprehensive schools, including core subjects, involve mixed-ability teaching. Politicians from all parties must start to address those kinds of issues if we are to tackle standards in our state schools in this country.

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman makes the reasonable point that legislation is only one of the ways in which we can raise standards. The role of legislation is important in providing the framework, and Parliament and Government clearly have an important role in providing the resources for schools, but what really makes the difference, as he rightly reminds us, is what actually happens in the classroom. He raised today, as he has on other occasions, the importance of setting. He has also raised the importance of high quality teaching in respect of English in general and reading in particular.
	I am pleased to put on the record in the House what I have said elsewhere today—that we welcome today's report by the Select Committee on Education and Skills. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has played an active role in that Committee, particularly in respect of that report, which sets out some challenges for our national literacy strategy. I take those challenges very seriously. If I am in this position in a month's time, I will be very pleased to take them forward, but I am sure that any Minister would try to do the same because they are so important.

Michael Connarty: The Minister may have noticed that the national media has given a lot of publicity to the Clackmannanshire experiment. Is he aware that the lady who presents the television clip is my sister-in-law, Ann Doran? She is very enthusiastic about the technique, which is not just a one-off—it has been around for some time and merits investigation by the Department.

Stephen Twigg: I apologise to my hon. Friend because I was not aware that the lady is his sister-in-law. I have looked at some of the work that has been done in respect of Clackmannanshire. The commitment that I gave today is that in responding to the Select Committee report we shall do exactly what my hon. Friend suggests by fully investigating the lessons from Clackmannanshire, particularly to assess any differences between what is happening there and our own literacy strategy, and whether any appropriate revisions and improvements might be required as a consequence.
	The Bill is the cornerstone of the new relationship with schools and furthers the ambitions that we set out last year in our five-year strategy for education. Through its provisions, we want to ensure that inspection is not a burden but a positive exercise in raising standards and identifying best practice; that there is greater emphasis on quality and accountability, both of schools to their parents and communities and of the chief inspector of schools to all those involved in education; that a skilled and valued professional work force are given the development and support that they need to achieve improved outcomes for all pupils; that schools should have stability and certainty about the resources available to them through three-year budgets that help them to plan strategically and give them the scope to make better and more flexible use of the record levels of investment in education; that schools are freed from unnecessary burdens, for example through the removal of the statutory annual parents' meeting and governors' annual report, alongside the streamlining of data collection on the school work force; that we promote a more mature relationship between schools, parents and communities; and for Wales, that the National Assembly can take forward its programme for high quality education and learning as set out in its 10-year strategy, "The Learning Country".

Joyce Quin: While I am very sympathetic to what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve, can he assure me that the increased autonomy of schools will not cut across the necessary co-ordination that we have highlighted in previous legislation such as the Children Act 2004, whereby local authorities, schools and other authorities all have to work together?

Stephen Twigg: I thank my right hon. Friend, who refers to an issue that was very much part of the debate in the other place and in Committee. We want to ensure that while we promote the autonomy of schools we also encourage them not only to work with each other but, as she rightly says, to work with other agencies that are concerned with the needs of children and young people. It is vital that we as a Department, local government, schools themselves and Ofsted—about which the Bill talks a great deal—ensure that there is coherence between the emphasis on autonomy and the emphasis on high standards, collaboration and real accountability.
	The Bill builds on the improvements across our schools system since 1997. It sets the stage for a mature new relationship between the Government and schools whereby schools have the freedom to drive their own improvement, and looks forward to a new era in which we can realise our shared ambition to secure high quality learning and opportunity for all learners. I am very pleased to commend it to the House.

Mark Hoban: We did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading and we do not propose to do so today. In fact, it is difficult to oppose a Bill that re-enacts so much of the legislation on school inspections that the last Conservative Government introduced in the first place. We support the move to a lighter-touch inspection regime that the Minister outlined; he is right to reduce the burden of inspection visits on schools as well as to increase their frequency where required. Several head teachers to whom I have spoken have welcomed those changes, as well the move to a shorter notice period heralding the start of an inspection.
	As I said, we will not oppose the Bill. I suspect, however, that the Liberal Democrats will do so, as they have expressed only recently their commitment to abolishing Ofsted and being soft on school standards—a retrograde step that would let down many of the parents who want to see standards raised.
	We support the move to three-year budgeting, which gives welcome stability to schools. Many head teachers are looking forward to the consistency that it will provide. We also support measures to improve the training of school staff. The fact that more and more schools are using teaching assistants to provide support in classrooms means that the role of the Teacher Training Agency should be reviewed and widened to include that.
	I commend the work that my noble Friends Lord Hanningfield and Baroness Morris did in the other place to strengthen protection for rural schools faced with the threat of closure and to enhance the consultation process surrounding the closure of special schools, too many of which have been closed, putting at risk, in the eyes of parents, the choice that they have for their children with special educational needs. Conservative Members are committed to introducing a moratorium on the closure of special schools after the general election to give parents of children with special educational needs a real choice when it comes to the education of their children.
	There are gaps in the Bill. We would have liked more action to increase parental choice of schools, and more action to restore school discipline—an important issue for teachers, pupils and parents alike. There is nothing in the Bill to tackle the problems identified in today's highly critical Select Committee report on the teaching of reading. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who has consistently championed the use of phonics; indeed, he has raised it in the House twice this week. When the Government respond to the report it will be interesting to see how they embrace that. Having looked at the research from the Clackmannanshire study, I understand that phonics can make a huge contribution to the teaching of reading in our schools. It is not right to say that the national literacy strategy places as much emphasis on phonics as the Clackmannanshire approach, and we need to ensure that the strategy reflects best practice so that all children can benefit from methods such as synthetics phonics. We must tackle the fact that one in five children leaves primary school without being able to read to the required level of ability. That impairs and hinders their progress in secondary school and throughout the rest of their lives.
	As I said, there are big gaps in the Bill. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who is now in her place, leaves a full in-tray, and there will be much for her successor to tackle on 6 May.

Richard Allan: I apologise to the House for arriving a little late and missing the first couple of minutes of the debate. I am unfamiliar with the hectic pace of legislation at this stage of parliamentary proceedings, being more used to the sedentary pace that we normally have.
	Having said that, speed has characterised the passage of the Bill. I was appointed to the Standing Committee expecting to take over after its first sitting, but when I arrived at the end to get my orders for the second day I found that the Bill had gone through in a single day. That reflects the fact that if legislation is sometimes revolutionary, this Bill certainly could not be so characterised—indeed, it is rather more evolutionary.
	We shall decline the invitation of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) to vote against the Bill, on the ground that he explained: it creates a lighter-touch inspection regime for Ofsted. It would be illogical for a party that is genuinely concerned about bureaucratic burdens on schools and the potential intrusiveness of the inspection system to vote against a measure that makes it slightly less burdensome. We therefore do not intend to vote against the Bill.
	I want to put down a marker about schools' organisation, with which the Bill deals. We do not know how it will work in practice but, at this time of year, when allocations to individual schools begin to arrive on parents' doormats, I am sure that all hon. Members receive letters expressing concerns. There is a fundamental problem with the rhetoric that all the parties have been using in recent years, whereby they promote the notion of parental choice while regimes to remove surplus places continue to exist. There is a fundamental inconsistency in those positions because choice requires the availability of a certain amount of capacity to satisfy it. In the Bill, the Government take on centrally more of the burden of determining some of those difficult issues. They will remain difficult, and the regulations and subsequent detail that are relevant to the problem that I outlined will be important in the forthcoming Parliament and to Ministers, from whichever party they come.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Crossrail Bill (Carry Over)

Tony McNulty: I beg to move,
	That further proceedings on the Crossrail Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament.
	That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as the Crossrail Bill when it was presented in this Session—
	(a) the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first time; and
	(b) the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;
	That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
	I believe that people realise that Crossrail is a project of national, not only regional, significance. The strategic transport improvements that it brings will be experienced across the country and the scheme will be a catalyst for safeguarding a national economy that is strongly related to the performance of our capital city.
	Today, I simply wish to dwell on the parliamentary procedures of the carry-over motion rather than the detail and substance of the Bill. However, I shall say a few more introductory words. In transport benefits, Crossrail will enable better access to the capital for the hundreds of thousands of workers who commute into London every day. It will provide strategic interchanges for local, national and international business and leisure travellers. In economic benefits, London plays a major role in supporting regional economies and jobs, through commuting, product and service purchases, fiscal transfer and economic activity.
	The Bill was introduced on 22 February, and has subsequently been through several essentially procedural steps. When the Bill was deposited, it was supported by a regulatory impact assessment, a race equality impact assessment, a book of reference, an estimate of costs, an environmental statement and a non-technical summary of that statement, parliamentary plans and sections, a European Court of Human Rights statement, a housing statement and explanatory notes. Some 4,600 landowners notices were served and approximately 400 street and footpath notices were put up. The environmental statement comprises some 3,700 pages and nine volumes and is supported by a further 14,000 pages of specialist technical reports. The book of reference contains more than 5,000 entries, which would need to be re-checked if the Bill had to be deposited again because the book of reference must be no more than 28 days old at the time of deposit.
	The scheme as defined by the Bill, including the parliamentary plans and sections, a schedule of works and so on, represents the culmination of the best part of four years of work by Cross London Rail Links, which employs around 100 staff and 90 consultants. For those who are interested in such data, around 14 tonnes of material were distributed to 140 different locations to meet the requirements of Standing Orders, which include ensuring that documents are available for public inspection locally. Notices were also published to advertise the introduction of the Bill twice in the weeks of 21 February and 28 February in The Times, Evening Standard and 18 local newspapers along the route.
	The Bill was deposited and secured its First Reading, during which the whole route was safeguarded. Subsequently, because it had already been consulted on but was not part of the final declared route, the Abbeywood to Ebbsfleet route was also safeguarded. On 10 March, examiners—Clerks of the House who check compliance with Standing Orders—looked at the Bill, took evidence that notices had been served, documents deposited and advertisements made. They received no objections but they reported that the Bill had failed to meet Standing Orders relating to the time of deposit and notices.
	On 17 March, the Commons Standing Orders Committee met to consider the examiners' report and hear from the Government's agent why it was desirable, especially to minimise the period of uncertainty for those affected by the works, for the Bill to proceed as soon as possible despite the fact that it had not fulfilled the Standing Orders. The Committee decided to dispense with Standing Orders on timing, thus allowing the Bill to proceed. A similar procedure was undertaken in the other place by its Standing Orders Committee on 22 March.
	The purpose of the motion is simply to ensure that the Bill can be carried over for consideration in the next Parliament and that all the work that I have described and that has been done thus far is not wasted. Carrying a Bill over an election is feasible and, indeed, precedented for a hybrid Bill. There will be no curtailing of appropriate scrutiny. There will be the usual opportunities for hon. Members to debate the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, and for their constituents to be heard in front of a Select Committee composed of hon. Members of this House, and subsequently in a Select Committee of the other place. The Select Committee will sit in a quasi-judicial capacity and have the opportunity to hear a range of submissions in considering petitions against the Bill.
	If the Bill is not carried over, despite the cross-party support and that of the overwhelming majority of the business community in London, which has been vocal and forthcoming in its backing for the project, we would have to redo all that I described—for example, serving approximately 5,000 landowners with notices, advertising in the press and updating all the documents required at the time of deposit, thus doing again all the referencing to check everything that is entailed. Whatever people feel about the merits of the project, I do not believe that anyone is especially wedded to the notion that, purely because of the interruption—for want of a better word—of an election, the Bill should not be carried over and presented for Second Reading at the earliest opportunity. Several people are directly affected by the Bill and it would not be good public policy to make them undergo all those processes again and suffer the subsequent uncertainty.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister knows that I support the Bill and the carry-over motion. Can he offer us some hope that the Bill will be introduced quickly in the new Parliament?

Tony McNulty: That point is central to carrying over a Bill. It will be reintroduced at the earliest opportunity after the interruption of an election. I hope that I can say that with confidence, given the support throughout the House for the measure. I shall be candid and say that, of course, there is the little matter of the £10 billion price tag that comes with it, and a good deal of continuing work needs to be done to ascertain how the costs will be apportioned, but I assure my hon. Friend that we fully intend to present the Bill for its Second Reading and subsequent stages at the earliest opportunity. Given all the momentum and the widespread support that the project commands in London and beyond, in both Houses and the business community, and, not least, the impact on those who could be affected by the process, the sooner we move, post election, to Second Reading, the better.

Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend mentioned those who will be affected. Three stations and the loop will be affected in my constituency. Clearly, I have many constituents who will be subjected to some uncertainties if there are undue delays. I therefore urge my hon. Friend not only to press for Second Reading as soon as possible, but to expedite the whole process so that there is no undue delay and uncertainty for my constituents.

Tony McNulty: I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) the same assurance that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn): we fully intend to bring the Bill back as early as possible, should the interruption to which I referred have the outcome that we anticipate. Even if it does not, however, I am confident that whichever party forms the next Government will seek to bring these measures forward, because everyone has said that they understand the importance of the project for the capital and for the capital's contribution to the wider national economy. So, for the reasons that I have outlined, I commend the order to the House.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the motion in the way he has. He used rose-tinted language designed to give the impression that the Government were engaged in frenetic activity on the Crossrail project. He even used the expression "secure the First Reading", as though that were a really burdensome hurdle to overcome, when we all know that it is the most formal part of parliamentary procedure.
	The reality of the Bill and the carry-over motion before us is best encapsulated in a short piece in today's Evening Standard under the by-line of Ross Lydall, its local government correspondent. It says:
	"One of the scheme's main backers has revealed growing frustration with the lack of progress and Government cash. Bob Kiley, London's transport commissioner, said: 'We are where we have always been from the beginning, which is nowhere.' Crossrail dates from 1989 and would involve digging a twin-bore tunnel between Paddington and Whitechapel, with new stations along Oxford Street. It remains a project that everybody wants but no government will pay for. Mr. Kiley said Crossrail was costed at £10.2 billion in 2002"—
	which the Minister mentioned again today—
	"but since then construction costs had risen two-and-a-half times faster than inflation."
	It is salutary to remind ourselves that the last time the House carried over a hybrid Bill from one Parliament to another was when we were dealing with the Channel Tunnel Bill, another project that was not exactly renowned for its sound financial footing.

Jeremy Corbyn: I think that the Member has been misled. The last Bill to be carried over was the obnoxious City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, which we did so much to try to defeat. Will he give us some idea of his proposals for Crossrail? If we do not carry over the Bill, we shall have no project. The Bill is the basis of the project. I was hoping that he was going to say that he supported the carry-over and the expenditure on the development of Crossrail. Perhaps he could get to the point.

Christopher Chope: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, he is right to say that the last Bill to be carried over was the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, but that was a private Bill, not a hybrid Bill. The point that I was making was that this would the first hybrid Bill to be carried over since the Channel Tunnel Bill. The hon. Gentleman also asked me to make a commitment to the Crossrail project, but no serious prospective Government—such as we are—would be prepared to write a blank cheque for any project, however desirable people might think it is. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking a blank cheque from me today for the Crossrail project, I am afraid that he is going to be disappointed, just as he will have been disappointed by the failure of his own Government to provide one. The Minister talked about this being a £10 billion project, but we know that it is already projected to be much more expensive.
	We are not against the principle of a carry-over, because the whole essence of Conservative party policy is to ensure that we get good value for money. After all the work that has been done on the technical documentation, there would be no point in having to get it all replicated just for the sake of it. However, we must face up to the reality that the Bill has not yet been debated in the House. It was brought in at the tail end of this Government's term of office, and what the Minister has said cannot be regarded as a substitute for activity. There has been a notorious lack of activity by the Government in relation to this issue.

Jane Griffiths: I was a candidate for parliamentary election in 1996. As a resident of Reading, I was angry and upset when a Bill dealing with the previous version of Crossrail failed. It fell for procedural reasons that we all understand. As a candidate, however, I was quite joyful at the opportunity that that presented. I would suggest to hon. Members who will be seeking re-election in the coming weeks—not including myself—that matters that cause them grief could also cause them joy as a candidate.
	Since my election in 1997, I have spoken up for Crossrail, and for Reading to be its western terminus, at every opportunity. So the publication and First Reading of the Crossrail Bill in February were very welcome, and I strongly support this motion, which would allow it to be carried over into the next Parliament. Of course I am sorry that I will not be here to carry on the fight for Crossrail, and for it to come to Reading, but I hope that the people of Reading and Woodley, in my constituency, will keep up the pressure to make sure that whichever man replaces me continues to work for Crossrail, and that it comes to Reading.
	I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) for her persistence in fighting for Crossrail, and for her work towards making the scheme happen, and to other hon. Members who represent constituencies on the fringe of London and just beyond.
	While I am happy to support this motion to allow the scheme to go forward, I remain unhappy that Maidenhead is Crossrail's proposed western terminus. Since that decision was announced, I have talked to numerous people, organisations and industry bodies, and no one can understand it. One argument is that it would cost £300 million to electrify the stretch of track between Maidenhead and Reading, but that would be negligible given the estimated cost of £10 billion for the scheme. It has also been said that Cross London Rail Links Ltd was worried that it would be left with the cost of re-signalling Reading station, yet talks with representatives of Network Rail reveal that the scheme is in the budget for before the date of completion of Crossrail. The money is there, and the only money that Crossrail would be expected to pay would be for anything extra needed solely for Crossrail.
	It has also been said that Crossrail is not coming to Reading because the company is worried about being left with the cost of upgrading Reading station. Yet a recent answer from the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), stated:
	"The Strategic Rail Authority has considered possible upgrade options for Reading station, but is not in a position to undertake further development of this scheme within its currently funded investment programme."—[Official Report, 12 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 575W.]
	So there is nothing for Crossrail to worry about on that score.
	I am bewildered as to the real reason for Crossrail not going to Reading. I fail to understand why it is not in the interest of the scheme to gain access to the interchange at Reading, feeding into services to the midlands, Wales and the south-west. Why does Crossrail not want to gain all the revenue from commuters travelling from Reading to the City of London, for whom this would still be a better service than going into Paddington and changing, either to the underground or to Crossrail itself? It is well known in transport circles that the fewer changes people have to make, the more likely they are to use public transport. Why make the journey more difficult for people than is necessary?
	I recognise that people who have travelled long distances from areas significantly to the west of London are more likely to carry on into Paddington and transfer there, as they do now. I am sure, however, that there are many more in between who would come to Reading and transfer to Crossrail for the direct route into London and across to the Eurostar services that we shall soon have at Stratford. That will not happen if Maidenhead is Crossrail's western terminus.
	It is even more disappointing because Reading people will lose out if the scheme does not come to Reading. Slots currently available to trains from Reading to the stations between Reading and Paddington will be lost, so as to provide services for Crossrail. Even more worrying are the recent reports in Rail Freight Group News—a well respected publication—that the Bill will allow Crossrail exclusive use of the two slow lines from Maidenhead to Paddington, leaving the InterCity 125, Virgin Rail, other slower passenger services and freight to operate on the fast lines—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is worrying me is that the hon. Lady is now going a little too deeply into the contents of the Bill. We are debating a carry-over motion. I acknowledge that there can be some reference to the Bill in connection with the arguments for carry over or otherwise, but we cannot have a pseudo-Second Reading speech.

Jane Griffiths: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall conclude my remarks. I support the carry-over motion and I hope that whoever succeeds me in this Chamber in the next Parliament works as hard as I have tried to do, and as my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have done, for Crossrail.
	This is my last contribution in the House and I would like to thank Members on both sides of the Chamber for their friendship and support.

John Thurso: May I confirm the support for the motion of those on the Liberal Democrat Benches? The Minister mentioned the widespread support throughout London for the Crossrail project, particularly in the business community and elsewhere. This is an important scheme for the economic development of London, but it has already suffered from too many delays, not least under the last Government. Its progress should not be impeded at this stage; it is important that it should be carried forward.
	In the House and elsewhere, particularly in the Greater London assembly, the Liberal Democrats have supported the principle for Crossrail. We are committed to it and we are pleased, therefore, that the Government intend to go ahead in the next Parliament. I hope they do so expeditiously.
	Notwithstanding our support, there are areas of concern, although today is not the day for that debate, as you have rightly said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should highlight one or two key issues, such as the funding package, getting an early start to the core section, whether Crossrail should be a discrete railway and the need for serious consideration of links between Stansted and Heathrow, as well as links further west, which the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) mentioned. We should also examine the problem of trains coming up from the west country sharing the railway.

Paul Tyler: I strongly support the procedure of carry over. As the Minister will know, there was all-party support in the Modernisation Committee for it, in precisely the circumstances that are before the House this afternoon.
	Can my hon. Friend give any indication, or has the Minister given him any indication, as to whether the capacity problem at Paddington will be addressed? One advantage of the carry over is that we will have more time to consider the issue. As things stand, there is already a capacity problem for lines and platforms, and, as my hon. Friend has already said, this could dramatically affect the mainline services from Cornwall and the far west.

John Thurso: My hon. Friend raises one of the problems that I hope will be discussed in detail during the passage of the Bill. I am sure the Minister has noted those concerns, which I share. All those issues need to be dealt with during consideration of the Bill, but today it is important that the carry-over motion be passed. I shall certainly support it.

John McDonnell: I support the carry-over motion, very straightforwardly, because if it is not passed a number of companies in my constituency will face further prolongation of the blight on the development of their operations. To name just two, Leemark Engineering and HG Timber have been told that Crossrail will be taking some of their land, which will prevent them from implementing their expansion plans, and therefore prevent them from increasing employment among my constituents. Any further delay will not only prevent the future planning of their businesses, but have an overall impact on the confidence in my constituency in relation to future investment by businesses.
	The carry-over motion is important and I support it, but it is more important that we bring the Bill forward very quickly after the election. In addition, we must bring it forward with guaranteed security of funding. We cannot allow this to remain as speculation. In that case, many of us will campaign during the general election to secure that commitment from the Government. After getting on for 20 years of discussion of Crossrail, we cannot again allow the issue to continue to blight the lives of many of our constituents.

Mark Field: May I first say a few words about the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths)? She said that this is her swansong in the House. I am a Reading boy, and I narrowly missed the Conservative nomination for Reading, East in 1997. I would have ended up being the losing candidate against her, so it is probably just as well that things worked out as they did. She has been a fine servant to the House.
	May I also say a few words about the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), who may or may not return to the House? That may apply to me; I am taking nothing for granted in this election. She has played a tremendous role in the all-party group on Crossrail, but I want to pay a personal tribute to her. I am a London Member of Parliament and we have worked and spoken together on a number of issues. We are in the middle of an election campaign, but I know that her Conservative opponent, Lee Scott, is an extremely strong admirer of all the work she does. The people of Ilford, North have been well served over the last eight years, and I hope they continue to be well served—perhaps under different colours—in the years ahead.
	Like other Members, I support the carry-over motion, and I support Crossrail very firmly. There is little doubt that it is essential to London's future competitiveness and growth. In many ways, the biggest threat to the competitiveness of the capital is our transport system. All business regards this as the single most important issue that faces London and it is important that we have proper investment of the £10 billion, and rising, across London's transport system over the next few years. Obviously, Crossrail should be part and parcel of that.
	I endorse the words of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is absolutely right that we need to get the funding together, but we must ask, "Where is the money?" On one level, one might say that it is the height of political cynicism for the Government to have talked the project up in the way that they have in the last year or so. They have talked about the green light being given to Crossrail when little more than a flickering amber light has been given.
	I accept that my party pulled the plug on the project over a decade ago when we were in government, but equally, here we are just before a general election, desperately in need of this investment. It is of national, and indeed international, importance that London and the London region have that investment. The Government must lead the way with their financing, because we cannot carry on taking London's continued economic success for granted.
	If I may, I shall finish with a few words on some local concerns over the route. In Mayfair, for example, there is a grave concern that, although three routes were proposed, the Government seem to be running with a consortium with a single route only. I would like to know why other routes were not considered in more detail. I hope that we will have an opportunity on Second Reading, after the election, to explore this a great deal further. There is little doubt, particularly without the finance being in place, that there is a blight on many tens of thousands of my constituents in Westminster, and I suspect on hundreds of thousands of constituents in London and beyond. The same applies to parts of Bayswater and the City of London.
	I support the carry-over motion, not least, as the Minister rightly pointed out, owing to the fact that the cost of petitions and all the preliminary work would be wasted if we had to revisit all this. I hope that on Second Reading we shall have a robust debate about the management of the issue and of the route, because the uncertainty is the worst thing for the ongoing blight that affects not only the residential population, but the businesses on which we rely in this country.

Linda Perham: Today's carry-over motion is vital, because it will allow the Crossrail Bill to be suspended until the new Parliament commences. I cannot overemphasise the importance of ensuring that this momentum is maintained and that Second Reading take place as soon as possible in the new Session.
	I commend the support that the Crossrail project has throughout the country and throughout the House, as well as in the business community, which is also anxious that the project go ahead and that the motion allow us not to lose any time with the project going forward.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) for her support for the project and her kind words. I also thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) for his kind words about my role as chair of the all-party Crossrail group. We have worked hard to support the project, and all the group's members support the carry-over motion.
	Everyone knows about Crossrail's benefits for London—they have been well rehearsed. It is essential that the project go forward because of the contribution it will make to the economy, adding £19 billion to the UK's GDP and creating 120,000 jobs in London alone. In addition, the 13 construction contracts are worth about £300 million each. The benefits to east London are also well known. Those of us who represent that part of London believe that the area needs more investment and regeneration.
	Hon. Members have asked about funding and the Minister mentioned the £10 billion price tag. Finance and funding are matters that carrying over the Bill will allow us to address in the new Parliament, and I am sure that those issues will be discussed and ironed out come the summer. However, questions about funding should not take priority over passing the carry-over motion.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, we hope that Second Reading will be scheduled to take place as soon as possible after in the new Parliament. I am sure that the Minister supports our aim of getting the usual channels to allow that to happen.

Peter Luff: It will not have escaped your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am the only Member seeking to catch your eye who does not represent a London or south-east constituency. I have a confession to make: I woke up to Crossrail a bit too late, although I have always supported the project in principle. I remind the House that there is nothing new about Crossrail: the first such services operated in about 1860, when trains on the Great Western main line went through to Farringdon on what are now the Metropolitan and Circle lines. Sadly we lost the service at some point in the late 19th century—

Tony McNulty: Liberal cuts.

Peter Luff: I think it predates that. However, there is nothing new about Crossrail, which is a thoroughly good idea in principle. The trouble is that the proposal is not only about London. That is why the carry-over motion must be carefully considered. Is this the right Bill to carry over?
	In principle, I entirely buy into improving London transport services. As one who spends most of his working life in London, I can see the need to do that.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend says that he buys into that, but no one else has.

Peter Luff: My right hon. Friend takes me to task for my characteristically lax use of language—something of which he is never guilty—and makes a powerful point about the problems that have been highlighted during this debate. I concur with him on that point.
	The Bill as drafted has several drawbacks and I am not at all sure that it is the right Bill to carry over. The first drawback is that it appears to give a lot of power to the Mayor of London. I understand that, earlier today, as part of the deal done on the Railways Bill, some of the powers that that Bill would have given the Mayor were removed. I am not sure that services running to the west of London, which will have a serious impact on the Great Western main line, should be handed into the power of the Mayor of London.
	Secondly, I am concerned about the Bill's long title, which states that the Bill is to
	"Make provision for a railway transport system running from Maidenhead".
	I like Maidenhead a lot. My family has strong links with the town and my great-great-great-great uncle was mayor of Maidenhead in the 18th century, so I am delighted that it is to have a wonderful new railway service—but that service should go to Reading, as the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) said. At this point, may I say that I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said about the hon. Lady? I wish her every happiness in the future. She has been a fine Member of Parliament and has made a fine contribution to our proceedings. She will be sorely missed.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Luff: Yes, but not on that point, I hope.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Worcester-Maidenhead axis is interesting, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that even the people of Worcester would benefit from a Crossrail connection, which would mean that trains could go under London and people would not have to change services? Everyone would be helped if there were a new railway line that everyone could use.

Peter Luff: Sadly, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. He draws me on to the constituency point I wish to raise in connection with the Bill and the reason why I have reservations about carrying it over. It was alluded to by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in what will probably be his last intervention as a Member of Parliament. He is an old friend of mine—I was his boss once and he mine, and we go back a long way. It therefore grieves me to have to draw the House's attention to the fact that he was slightly wrong. In fact, although the Bill as drafted will increase track and platform capacity at Paddington station, it will reduce capacity on the lines into Paddington. That is the crucial point.
	I am working hard to improve services from my constituency to London on the Great Western and Cotswold lines. I want an hourly Adelante service instead of the present rather patchy service. I think that the Bill that we are being invited to carry over will result in the two relief lines—those on the left going to London—being devoted exclusively to Crossrail services, leaving only the two existing main lines to and from Paddington for all the other railway services out of Paddington. I am therefore seriously concerned that, if we carry it over, the Bill will frustrate the ambitions of my constituents—and those of the Clerk at the Table, who is a Hereford man and would therefore benefit from improved services through to Herefordshire. I think he missed that observation, but I am sure he will read it in Hansard tomorrow.
	The regulatory impact assessment for the Bill—I am grateful to the official who e-mailed it to me this morning—is focused entirely on the benefits to London. Yes, there are benefits to London, but the document contains no assessment of the impact on services beyond London. That worries me greatly.

Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Linda Perham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Luff: I was hoping to draw my remarks to a conclusion, but I shall give way first to my—for the present purposes—hon. Friend.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make another intervention. Does he not agree that carrying over the Bill creates the opportunity for the concerns that he and I have expressed this afternoon to be properly examined, unlike the alternative of pushing it though at speed today?

Peter Luff: That is a very good point. My concern about that suggestion is that the Bill refers specifically to Maidenhead and those who know the workings of the railway services between London, Reading and the west know that Maidenhead is a very odd place to terminate services and that making it the terminus could have serious implications for the management of the railways. Although I support Crossrail in principle, I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that the Bill, even as drafted, does not preclude an extension of Crossrail services to Reading, which is what one of the consortiums—Superlink, I believe—proposes.

Linda Perham: I know that the hon. Gentleman is focusing on constituency concerns, but does he accept that if the Bill is not carried over, we lose the opportunity to make progress on the project, which has already been delayed? In addition, will he consider London's position as an international financial centre and the benefits that flow from it? If Crossrail is not implemented, the future of London and the UK economy will be seriously threatened.

Peter Luff: I am extremely conscious, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if I respond fully to the interventions, I shall be in danger of making a Second Reading speech, whereas I wanted to explain briefly why I had reservations about the Bill being carried over. To be honest, I think it should be carried over—

Eric Forth: Why?

Peter Luff: Because I am a reasonable man. If I receive the reassurances I seek, I think that, for the reasons just given by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), we should accede to the motion.

Tony McNulty: Bearing in mind that I might not have a chance to respond to the debate, let me say that Cross London Rail Links, which came up with the original business case, suggested Maidenhead and all the consultation was done on that basis. Not least because of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), we looked at the virtues of a Maidenhead-Reading route, but we were unable to do that because by that time the route had almost been locked down to the existing one. However, we have said since the Bill was published that we will consult on safeguarding the Maidenhead-Reading route, perhaps as a prelude to including it when the Bill has passed. The issue therefore remains live, not least because of my hon. Friend's endeavours.

Peter Luff: That is a genuinely helpful intervention, and I shall conclude very shortly, as I appreciate what the Minister has said. However, if the carry-over is agreed today—that will obviously happen—the Committee that considers the Bill must look carefully at capacity issues for the west country, Wales, Oxfordshire, Wales, Worcestershire and Herefordshire. I fear that trying to fit all the freight and passenger services into those two railway lines could have serious consequences. The significant sums that the railway would cost would be better spent on other enhancements to the rail network, such as upgrading the entire line to the west country and Cornwall, a sadly neglected corner in the economic development of our nation. That is certainly the view of the west London branch of Friends of the Earth.
	In conclusion, if the Bill is carried over, we must be careful not to carry over a measure that could undermine significantly the transport interests of my constituents and many other people to the west of London.

Diane Abbott: I support Crossrail and the carry-over of the Bill. We in the east end of London have long looked forward to the completion of Crossrail, which will do an enormous amount for regeneration and job creation in our area. We have had to wait 15 years or more, and we do not want any more undue delay. Even today, we can read on the front pages of London's local papers news of a serious drive-by shooting that affected the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy). The jobs and regeneration that Crossrail will bring will be important in the fight against crime and social alienation.
	I congratulate my colleague, the Mayor of London, on fighting a hard campaign to bring Crossrail into existence. I join hon. Members who have urged us to support the carry-over motion and to introduce the Bill early in the next Parliament along with concrete proposals for funding the line. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) on her last speech in this Parliament. She entered the House in the great landslide of 1997 and, although she is stepping down at the election, she has played her part in ensuring that we will win an historic third term. Finally, I would like the Bill to be carried over and speedy progress to be made on Crossrail because the next step is Crossrail 2, which will enable people to travel in splendour from the historic delights of Dalston all the way to Chelsea.

Jeremy Corbyn: Like other hon. Members, I shall be brief in my support for the carry-over motion, which is essential if we are to make rapid progress in the next Parliament on securing funding for the scheme. To some extent, I agree with hon. Members that, while the Bill is important in putting such provisions into law, we also need an agreement on funding and the cost of the project. Costs are already high. If Mr. Kiley's figure are correct, they are already £14 billion to £15 billion. By the time Crossrail is built, they will be considerably more, because inflation will have increased. We therefore need an agreement on funding and, like many other candidates in the election, I support the scheme and the funding that it requires.
	May I draw the Minister's attention to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about blight compensation? The line does not go through my constituency, and impinges only on the southern part of my borough but, because it is a massive scheme, it has an impact on everyone in London and could lead to incredible improvements in transport infrastructure. However, blight is a huge factor in long-term planning issues. Businesses and landowners around Heathrow terminal 5 have been given blight compensation from the beginning of that scheme. Unfortunately, people in the path of the Crossrail development, even if they support it, will not have their land purchased under compulsory purchase orders and will not receive compensation in the period in which it fails to go ahead. The planning process would be encouraged if blight compensation were paid from the beginning of such schemes, as that would provide an incentive for promoters, whether in the public or private sector, to develop them as quickly as possible.

John McDonnell: To clarify the point about the development of the third runway at Heathrow and other airport expansion schemes, the proposals for the blight compensation scheme are currently subject to consultation and discussion. However, my hon. Friend is correct that there is a legal duty on the British Airports Authority, working with the Government, to offer blight compensation, which could readily be transferred to other schemes to provide security for long-term planning processes.

Jeremy Corbyn: I endorse my hon. Friend's clarification, and thank him for it. I hope that the Minister has heard what we are saying and recognises that, while supporters of Crossrail want it to proceed to completion, we also want to ensure that the blight problem does not go on forever.
	I have no concerns about the involvement of the Greater London authority and the Mayor and London. Quite the opposite—I have every confidence in them, because the devolution of planning and transport matters means that they should have that involvement and planning power. Without the effective voice for London that is projected by the Mayor and the Assembly, schemes such as Crossrail would be a lot further behind.

Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that far from being concerned about the Mayor's involvement in the scheme, we should accept that that involvement gives rise to confidence? People should not quibble about his involvement, as he should have greater powers, particularly over transport in the south-east of England.

Jeremy Corbyn: I could not agree more. If people had listened to the Mayor of London about the regeneration of the tube, we would have a bond issue rather than a public-private partnership and a great deal of public money would have been saved. I think that everybody now accepts that, and I hope that Crossrail can be similarly funded, as that will turn out to be a great deal cheaper.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) made some legitimate points about the rail network beyond London and the impact of Crossrail. Clearly, the constrictions on the Paddington line require a great deal of examination—that is a perfectly fair and reasonable point. He will accept, however, that by developing Crossrail we encourage overall rail traffic usage, which has a knock-on effect on the rest of the system. I am sure that he will join me in wanting to secure both the reopening of the line between Worcester and Cheltenham and the twin-tracking of the Honeybourne line through the Cotswolds.

Peter Luff: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of my constituency. The line between Worcester and Cheltenham is already open, but he is right about the twin tracking. I agree that Crossrail will make travel in the south-east more attractive, and even more people will travel from the areas served at present by Paddington beyond Reading. We must therefore make sure that capacity issues are thoroughly addressed on the Great Western main line.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is only the one-hour limit on our debate and the imminent dissolution of Parliament that prevents me from talking at greater length about the number of disused lines around the country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not only the imminent dissolution of Parliament. The Chair has a certain interest in applying the Standing Orders.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am tempted to discuss disused lines in a wider sense, but I accept the point that you are making, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The subject will have to wait for another day.
	I strongly support the carry-over motion. I hope that it is agreed—I am sure that it will be—and that we secure the money for the line, leading to the continued regeneration and renaissance of the rail network.
	In conclusion, it is only fitting that I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) for her effective lobbying on Crossrail in the House, the Labour party and many other groups, including the trade union network, in which she and I are both active. I thank, too, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), who has just made her last speech in the House. She has been a great campaigner for improvements to public transport and rail connections to Reading, and we should acknowledge that.

Mike Gapes: May I begin by paying tribute to Members who have campaigned for many years for Crossrail, particularly my colleague, friend and neighbour, the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham)? I first came to the House in 1992, and as a prospective candidate I remember producing leaflets in 1990 calling for the introduction of Crossrail. I put questions to a succession of Ministers from different Governments from 1992 onwards, but I did not get very far.
	I am therefore delighted by the opportunity now afforded us. There was an exhibition in the centre of Ilford a few weeks ago allowing my constituents to look at maps and designs as well as the detail of the proposals. They could see that in my constituency more stations are affected by Crossrail than in any other constituency. The platforms at Ilford station will have to be extended, and Seven Kings and Goodmayes stations will also be affected. Just outside my constituency, Chadwell Heath station will be affected. There is also the loop allowing freight trains to pass passenger trains. There is only one loop on the Crossrail route, and it is in my constituency.
	Many of my constituents will therefore be very concerned about the engineering work that will be done from 2006 onwards if the timetable is met, as many people will be affected by a lot of noise, lorries and other vehicles, and by waste being taken away. That will directly affect my constituents in Fenman Gardens in Goodmayes just a few yards away from where the works will be. This is a question not only of commercial blight, but of blight on people's homes and the areas where they live. That is why we cannot have a delay. We must carry over the Bill, bring it forward in the new Parliament as quickly possible and give the reassurance that there will not be further delay, uncertainty and difficulty for many thousands of people, including hundreds of my constituents.
	I welcome the fact that we are carrying the Bill over, and I conclude by again paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, the chair of the Crossrail group. I look forward to working with her in the coming Parliament, when she is re-elected to her seat.

Eric Forth: This is one of those bizarre, virtual reality occasions on which the Minister tells us that the matter has been worked on for so long and that we now have such great detail that we can do nothing other than carry things forward, as wasting all that work would be a tragedy. That is how the Minister set out the matter to us, making the case for this very dubious procedure of carry-over. Immediately afterwards, Member after Member said "Hold on a minute" and suggested that the route should go in a different direction, referred to a capacity problem at Paddington, said that the line should or should not go through their constituency or asked about funding.
	All the careful work that has been done by the thousands of dedicated people to whom the Minister so lovingly referred appears to be not only incomplete, but pathetically misdirected and inconclusive. Why is he trying to con the House into carrying over an incomplete piece of work that has already been in gestation for many years, as we have repeatedly been told, in the expectation that after an election, perhaps regardless of who is returned to Government, it will all suddenly be resolved quickly and expeditiously—something for which Member after Member has pleaded to the House?
	I cannot see any reality in that argument at all. That is not unusual for this place—this is a palace of dreams and wishes, as we know—but this is a particularly egregious example of such a debate and occasion. We are all congratulating one another and saying what a wonderful project is involved, but saying almost in the same breath that it is misconstrued and incomplete, and that we have no idea where the funding will come from. On that basis, I should have thought that it would be beneficial if we started all over again. If we did not carry forward this incomplete and rather pathetic piece of work, we could ask the new Parliament—it will, after all, be full of thrusting new Members with exciting new ideas and hopefully many new Ministers as well—to do the job properly. It could take into consideration the points made by the Members present today and perhaps come up with something much more viable and useful. In other words, carry-over would probably be the worst thing to do in this case. A fresh outlook with fresh minds and initiatives would be by far the best.

Martin Salter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Forth: I shall give way to the newly arrived Member, who has heard nothing of the debate so far.

Martin Salter: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have spent an awful lot of time working on the Crossrail issue. Is he proposing to divide the House on carrying over the Bill, because it would be very convenient for us if he was?

Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman may have put in a lot of work, but not today. We have all been here working for almost an hour, but he has just wandered into the Chamber.

Oliver Heald: As somebody who was born and brought up in Reading, may I ask my right hon. Friend to join me in recognising that it is the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), who has been present throughout the debate and who has done a great deal on this issue?

Eric Forth: Sadly, I have no connections with Reading whatever, and absolutely none with the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), I am very pleased to say.
	Rushing into a carry-over on this Bill would probably be completely the wrong thing to do, but I will not be surprised if the House does it anyway.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That further proceedings on the Crossrail Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament.
	That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as the Crossrail Bill when it was presented in this Session—
	(a) the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first time; and
	(b) the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;
	That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Points of Order

Ann Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice about the contents of an e-mail sent by Nick Barrett, chief executive of the Ramblers Association, to other staff members, describing the arrangements for leave for the Labour candidate in the Congleton constituency, who is himself an employee of the Ramblers Association. I have just received a copy of the e-mail, in which Nick Barrett, the chief executive, states that Nick Milton, the candidate,
	"is aware that the RA—as a charity—cannot be involved in supporting his candidacy."
	That is all well and good, but the chief executive concludes his e-mail with the following remarks:
	"Nick is running against one of the foulest MPs in the current Parliament—Anne Winterton. I am sure you all join me in wishing him success in his campaign."
	While members of the Ramblers Association throughout the United Kingdom, but perhaps particularly in the Congleton constituency, may be interested to hear the views of the chief executive, I believe that two points need to be raised—first, the unwarranted slur on my name, and secondly, the fact that the chief executive of a charity has expressed a political and partisan view in a communication that has been widely circulated.
	While it is my intention to refer this matter to the charity commissioners, I seek your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on what action can be taken, even in the dying hours of this Parliament, to prevent such unsavoury communications—in this case from the chief executive of the Ramblers Association, acting in violation of the rules applying to charities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice that she wished to raise that matter. I am sure that the whole House has heard what she has had to say. She will realise, however, that there is no way in which the Chair has a ruling to make on those matters. She has indicated that there may be possible lines of action open to her. I can only observe that we all have to have very broad shoulders with regard to the names that we are called. No doubt, more will be said during the course of a heated election campaign, but I am sure that she will pursue her own fight with her characteristic vigour.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that there may be a number of procedural avenues that my hon. Friend can pursue even at this stage? It may well be possible for an early-day motion to be tabled, for example, even if it is not possible for such a thing as an Adjournment debate to be sought. It is particularly unfortunate that this wicked move by someone who is apparently employed by a charity, of all things, should happen at this very moment, probably taking advantage of the fact that little or no parliamentary time is left. My hon. Friend could be urged to see whether any further parliamentary opportunity can be taken even now so that we can put a stop to such wickedness and nonsense.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) is well versed as to what parliamentary procedures may be open to her, but she has received advice from her right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who I am sure has equal knowledge of these matters. There are certainly opportunities that she may like to consider taking, even at this late stage of the Session.

Gambling Bill

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Under the Order of the House made on 6 April, any message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without Question put. I have received a message from the Lords. The Lords agree to the Gambling Bill with amendments, to which the Lords desire the agreement of the House.
	Lords amendments accordingly considered.

Clause 5
	 — 
	Facilities for Gambling

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 9 to 11, 13 to 15, 20, 25 to 27, 36, 37, 40 to 46, 48, 58 to 80, 91, 92, 95 to 99, 104, 106, 108 to 111, 113, 115 to 167, 169 to 187, 189 and 191 to 193.

Tessa Jowell: I intend to propose that the House accept all but two of the 193 amendments made by the Lords to this Bill. I ask the House to reject two Lords amendments only because they confuse the drafting of the Bill.
	This group of amendments is necessarily large because it encompasses all the technical and drafting alterations necessary for the efficient working of the Bill.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Casino

Lords amendment: No. 3.

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 4 with the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendment No. 21, Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 31, Lords amendment No. 39, Lords amendment No. 47, Lords amendments Nos. 50 to 55, Lords amendment No. 188 and Lords amendment No. 190.

Tessa Jowell: This group of Lords amendments deals with casinos, and I propose that the House accept all the amendments in the group except Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4, with which we disagree.
	I will briefly summarise the Government's position. I recommend that the House accept the amendments for the simple reason that securing the Bill is important for public protection. I very much regret that the Opposition have made a reduction in the number of proposed regional casinos in the first stage a condition of their support for this Bill. The conventions and circumstances of the time, however, require agreement. The Opposition had previously supported eight such casinos, then reduced the number to four, and now insist on one. On the basis of the Government's original proposition agreed in Committee, some seven local authorities will miss out on the potential benefits for regeneration in the first stage.
	We believe that regional casinos should be tested, primarily for any impact that they might have, because of the different nature of the regime, on problem gambling, but also for their power to regenerate run-down towns and cities. As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) is aware, we reserve the right to ask Parliament again what number of regional casinos is necessary to test their impact.

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for setting out the purpose of the Lords amendments. The Bill is very different from that which received its Second Reading on 1 November. I want to pay tribute particularly to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and Baroness Buscombe in another place. We support all the amendments, each of which improves the Bill, but because amendment No. 50 represents by far the biggest shift, I shall comment on that, as it has allowed us to reach agreement on the passage of the Bill.
	We very much welcome the fact that we have been able to reach an agreement. We have always recognised that much in the Bill is important and necessary, and failure to update the law would leave the public with inadequate protection, especially in relation to remote gambling, which is already a huge business and likely to increase further. Responsible operators, such as those in the Interactive Gaming, Gambling and Betting Association, and providers of remote gambling such as BSkyB, have made a strong case that it is in their interests to be able to reassure their customers that they are subject to regulation, unlike their competitors from wilder shores.
	The area of greatest controversy in the Bill remains the introduction of regional casinos. Originally, the Government argued that there could be up to 40 casinos, each of which would have 1,250 machines. That could have led to the introduction of something like 50,000 category A machines, which have been identified as carrying the highest risk of creating gambling addiction. Throughout the process, we have sought to increase safeguards against problem gambling and other concerns such as organised crime. For that reason, my colleague in another place, Baroness Buscombe, successfully persuaded their lordships to insert an amendment to increase the identification requirements, particularly to protect children who might otherwise be able to gain access to the gaming area. We accept that the Government have addressed that concern in a different way. For that reason, we will not press the two Lords amendments that Baroness Buscombe introduced, and we will accept the Government's alternative.
	Even though the Government were forced in Committee to restrict the number of regional casinos to just eight, many organisations, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Salvation Army, have continued to argue that there is a significant risk of vastly increasing problem gambling. In our view, it was unthinkable that a measure that remains so controversial should have been rubber-stamped in the wash-up after just five hours of debate in Committee in the other place. Indeed, their lordships managed to consider just 11 out of 353 clauses. In recognition of that, we considered that it would be far better to have just one regional casino as a pilot. Although the advisory panel will need to give proper consideration to possible locations, we are convinced that it should be located in a leisure resort, away from city centres. From the beginning, Members on both sides of the House have recognised that Blackpool has a strong case.
	Therefore, on the basis that the Government have been willing to accede to our proposals, I am happy to give the Opposition's support to amendment No. 50 and to the Bill.

Don Foster: The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) referred in passing to the concerns that many have expressed about the short period allowed in another place for debate on a very large number of amendments, which we have an opportunity to discuss today. I was delighted that last night, in another place, my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones sought assurances from the Minister that if the various measures that we are debating are agreed to, and if the Bill receives Royal Assent, urgent consideration will be given to them by both the newly established gambling commission and the Government. I was delighted that the Minister in another place gave that assurance and I hope that the Secretary of State will repeat that today.
	The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford also rightly referred to the most controversial part of the legislation in relation to casinos. What he did not say— although I suspect that he would agree with me—is that there is all-party support for large elements of the Bill, such as measures to introduce a much tougher regulator in the form of the gambling commission, regulation of internet gambling for the first time, and other measures that have been supported for a long time. Greatest concern, however, has centred on the issue of casinos.
	It is worth recalling that when the Bill was first brought to the House, the Secretary of State said clearly that if the Bill, in the form in which she introduced it at that time, led to any increase in problem gambling, it would be a bad Bill and would have failed. Despite her assurances, considerable concern existed on both sides of the House, not least about the proposal to introduce new super-casinos, as they have been described. It is worth reflecting that those casinos will not only be much larger than we have seen previously in this country but will contain up to 1,250 category A machines that would have allowed unlimited stakes and prizes, about which a great deal of concern has been expressed.
	We, too, sought to persuade the Government to reduce the number of super-casinos and to introduce a pilot period to test two things: first, whether it would add to regeneration in the area in which it is located, as the Government claim would happen; and secondly, to be assured that it did not lead to any increase in problem gambling. We were keen for the number to be reduced, and we were given an assurance. Now, following further deliberations, another reduction is being proposed. We are more than happy to support the trial of just one super-casino.
	The Secretary of State said that the Government reserved the right to increase the number later. I hope that the Secretary of State will reassure us that that is not a hint that as soon as we return after the election there will be any such move.

Oliver Heald: It could be us!

Don Foster: The issue might have to be considered by me, indeed—but whoever is in a position to produce secondary legislation, I hope that we shall at least hear from the current Secretary of State that it will happen only after a suitable opportunity is provided for a trial of the one super-casino that we currently propose. I will make that pledge on my party's behalf, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford will do the same. I note that the proposal for a reduction to just one super-casino initially came from my noble Friend Lord Greaves, but be that as it may, it now appears to have all-party support.
	I end with one more plea, which echoes the words of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford. Whatever location the commission recommends to the Secretary of State for the new super-casino—and, as others have said, there is a strong case for Blackpool—I hope that we will take on board the recommendations of the Joint Committee that carried out the pre-legislative scrutiny, and make it a destination casino. People should have to make an effort to visit it, rather than simply finding it on the high street. I hope that the Secretary of State will assure us that that is what she has in mind.

John Greenway: I apologise for not being present for the Secretary of State's speech. The lottery of the London traffic and the timing of the debate are the only excuses that I can proffer.
	Having chaired the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, I want to make three points that I consider important. First, the issue of mega-casinos has dogged the Bill from the start. It was the most contentious aspect of the Committee's work. We were introducing a new concept to the gambling environment, on which there are many different views. The Secretary of State and I might have preferred there to be more than one pilot, but it was argued in the Committee that we should recommend the trial of just one regional or destination casino. We did not do so, because at the time the concept was not in the Government's mind, but Committee members who have observed the reaching of this conclusion over the past 48 hours have expressed to me their satisfaction that we can both test the argument that a destination casino could regenerate a town such as Blackpool—which I sincerely hope will be the preferred destination, given all the time and effort that has been put in—and prove that access to machines with unlimited stakes and prizes would not lead to a rise in problem gambling. Although I believe that to be true, I know that many people are not convinced. We need this pilot, and also the pilots involving large and small casinos with significantly more machines than have hitherto been available in gambling destinations.
	I think that it would have been a grave error to allow this issue to thwart the Bill's progress. I believe that the most important recommendation made by my Committee to both Houses was that without the Bill, there would have been an increase in gambling of doubtful legality. We have seen an explosion of gambling opportunities—not just via the internet but by means of mobile telephony, often involving young people—and that is likely to increase during the next three to five years.
	It is inconceivable that Parliament could allow the Bill to fall, given the pressing need to regulate all that gambling. It is not regulated at present, and—as the Secretary of State knows, for I have said it forcefully on many occasions and in many forums over the past few months—I consider the vital point to be not how many casinos there are or how big they are, but the explosion of gambling on the internet, on websites and on mobile telephones.
	I know that visible gambling—people going into a mega-casino and playing on rank upon rank of gaming machines—offends some, but they must not ignore what I consider to be the far greater problem of unseen gambling. People may lose their homes, all their money and their whole way of life through internet gambling that is not regulated. I believe our United Kingdom industry shares my view that this must be a regulated and respected part of the gambling industry, which is why I am so glad that we are to pass a Bill that has occupied the time of so many people for so long.
	That was, in fact, my third point. I thank and pay tribute to all the many people who have been involved in the process, not just Ministers and their officials but my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and   my noble Friend Baroness Buscombe. They have devoted much time and effort to arriving at this point.
	This is a hugely challenging Bill, and I feel strongly that this is a good day for our country. We are recognising that gambling is part of the leisure industry—part of our way of life. Some people may not like it, but we must face reality, and I fervently believe that the Bill tries to do that. This is not the end of the argument, by any stretch of the imagination. The Bill sets out what is virtually a whole Parliament's work after the election: the establishing of the commission, codes of practice, regulations and the framework that will govern gambling for many years to come. I pay tribute to all who have been involved in the process.

Kevan Jones: I, too, welcome the amendment, but I am sad about one aspect. I supported the Bill at the outset, partly because it would liberalise the industry but also because—as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said—it would regulate the parts that needed regulation. I was a member of the Standing Committee, and I found it frustrating that the Bill kept changing. If there is anything to be learned from the process and the point that we have reached today, it concerns the Government's thinking before they produce complex Bills such as this, and what they want to end up with.
	I thought that the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Ryedale did some very good work. I am a big fan of pre-legislative scrutiny. Much of that work, sadly, was ignored, although it should have constituted the foundation of the Bill.
	The Bill was pulled in different directions. I have a lot of respect for the Minister who piloted it through Committee. He also felt on occasions that one week he was being pulled one way, and another week, the other way. He did a fantastic job in trying to pilot it through.
	On the issues around super-casinos, or regional casinos, I would have liked more than one. I agree that it will be difficult to have a true test with just one area. We got carried away with the fact that the super-casinos were going to be a panacea, bringing redevelopment and regeneration in all types of areas. That is why we saw a feeding frenzy of various potential applications throughout the country. Newcastle city council, a Liberal Democrat council, is trying to support an application locally. A lot of time and effort have been wasted in local government and in the gambling industry, which have not only lobbied but put forward plans. That could have been avoided if at the first stage we had been a little clearer about where we wanted to end up.
	I strongly support the proposal that the regional casino should be in a place such as Blackpool, which in its lobbying made a clear and coherent case as to why that area should be chosen. I hope that if that goes ahead, we do not wait too long before we have experiments elsewhere to judge the effects.
	On the industry as a whole, I agree with the hon. Member for Ryedale when he says that, overall, we have had a clean industry in this country. It has provided some good quality jobs and is well run. The Bill will add to that in introducing better regulation of parts of the industry. I have only one concern as regards where we are at now, with one super-casino proposed: the potential damage that has been done to the existing industry's confidence. Whichever lead Ministry after the election deals with gambling, it needs to build up relationships again with the industry and ensure that that industry, which has been well run for many years, is given the confidence to expand. It would be a mistake to think that casino gambling or another area of gambling can be predicated on one super-casino. We should not take away from the fact that some of the smaller, existing casinos do a lot of good work, not only employing people locally but ensuring the high standards to which the hon. Member for Ryedale referred.
	The Bill has had a long gestation period. It would have been a mistake if it had fallen today for the reasons that were outlined by the hon. Gentleman. Whole areas of gambling are not regulated at the moment, but they need to be regulated. That is what was sad about some of the discussion in the popular press. I understand why certain sections had the discussions concerning the super-casinos, but they did not recognise that today people can go out and gamble freely without any regulation. We need some publicity about the fact that the Bill will bring in regulation.
	In welcoming the fact that this period is coming to a close, I support the proposals, but let us hope that, post the election, we not only get the super-casinos in place but ensure that regulation under the Bill can be bedded in. Whichever Government Department deals with it after the election, it must ensure that it has good relationships with the gaming and betting industry.

Tessa Jowell: I rise to put one or two points on the record. I do not think any legislation in this Parliament has undergone the scrutiny that this legislation has. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and to his colleagues on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. A total of 160 recommendations were made by the Committee, 130 of which were adopted and incorporated in the Bill, so it is about as far from rubber-stamped legislation as it is possible to imagine.
	Once we have passed the Bill, we will have arguably the most protective gambling legislation in the world. That will safeguard our record as a country with one of the lowest rates of problem gambling, obviously excepting those countries where gambling is banned.
	The final point is in relation to the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). There has been a process of parliamentary debate—just that—about a tricky issue and the debate has focused essentially on the role of regional casinos and the number of regional casinos. It developed from the position on Second Reading, where the Government's view was that the number of regional casinos should be determined by the market, but within the context of a very clear regulatory framework, with a veto being available to local people as to whether they wanted casinos. Therefore, the debate to which he refers is a debate about numbers. It is not a debate about substance.
	It is important that the industry remains supportive of this Bill and has confidence in it. The decision to reduce from eight to one the number of regional casinos in the first stage means probably the loss of £600 million of inward investment to some of those parts of the country where that inward investment is most needed, and the loss of probably in excess of 40,000 jobs. No Government can bind the next Parliament, but it will be for the next Parliament to decide whether, in the light of demand and consistent with the precautionary principle, that number should be increased.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 4 disagreed to.

Clause 14
	 — 
	Lottery

Lords amendment: No. 5.

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 8, 93, 94 and 168.

Tessa Jowell: This group improves the protection for charity lotteries and I ask the House to approve them.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments 6 to 11 agreed to.

Clause 26
	 — 
	Duty to Advise Secretary of State

Lords amendment: No. 12.

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 23, 24, 107, 112 and 114.

Tessa Jowell: These amendments deal with the protection of children, the Government's overriding concern in bringing forward the Bill, and I propose that the House accept them.
	Lords amendment agreed to. 
	Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 35
	 — 
	Territorial Application

Lords amendment: No. 16.

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	3.30 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 19, 33, 34 and 38.

Tessa Jowell: I propose that the House accept each of the amendments in the group, which ensure the effective regulation of remote gambling.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 58
	 — 
	Age Limit for Category D Gaming Machines

Lords amendment: No. 22.

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider Lords amendments Nos. 32, 35, 49, 81 to 90, 100 to103 and 105.

Tessa Jowell: I propose that the House agrees to the amendments in this group, which concern the regulation of gaming machines and deliver on the Government's pledge to consult on any proposals for an age limit for gaming machines that children can use.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 23 to 55 agreed to.
	New Clause
	Lords amendment: No. 56, after clause 175, to insert the following new clause—Pool betting on dog races.

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	Again, I propose that the House accept the amendment, which addresses concerns raised with the Government by the greyhound industry, which has confirmed that it is happy with the amendment.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	New Clause
	Lords amendment: No. 57, after clause 177, to insert the following new clause—Christmas day.

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	This is also known as the Santa clause. I propose that the House agree to the amendment, which prohibits licensed gambling premises from offering gambling on Christmas day.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 58 to 193 agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Don. Foster, Tessa Jowell, Mr. Gordon Marsden, Mr. Mark Prisk, Mr. Tom Watson to be members of the Committee; Tessa Jowell to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr.Watson.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Supreme Court of England and Wales

Ordered,
	That the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2005 (S.I., 2005, No. 656), dated 11th March 2005, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.—[Mr. Watson.]

International Organisations Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Denis MacShane: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The International Organisations Bill is designed to ensure the effective functioning of international organisations and bodies. The measures are required to enable Her Majesty's Government to meet outstanding international commitments to confer legal capacity and privileges and immunities on a number of international organisations and bodies and certain categories of individuals connected to them, or to ensure parity of treatment between organisations where appropriate.
	Under existing legislation, we are unable to confer privileges and immunities on these organisations, even though we have signed international agreements committing us to do so. Some of the agreements are of long standing, dating back more than a decade.
	For most of the organisations concerned, the privileges and immunities will be conferred by Orders in Council, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Consequently, Parliament will have ample opportunity to scrutinise and debate the specific privileges and immunities that will be conferred on these organisations.
	Let me now turn to why we grant privileges and immunities to international organisations and bodies. Privileges and immunities are conferred on organisations and bodies so that they can carry out their functions without being impeded. The long-standing policy of HMG is that privileges and immunities should be granted primarily on the basis of functional need, to ensure that only those privileges and immunities necessary for the organisation to function effectively are granted. All cases are separately negotiated and it is rare that two organisations benefit from identical privileges and immunities.
	Immunities granted to the staff of international organisations are generally very restricted. Of the 3,000 staff of international organisations based, or with offices, in the UK, only 80 senior officers enjoy the equivalent of full diplomatic privileges and immunities. The remainder have no entitlement beyond immunity for acts performed in the course of their official duties.
	As regards privileges, the Government's policy adheres to the internationally accepted principle that states should not financially benefit from the presence of an organisation on their soil, and that one member state should not tax another through the medium of an international organisation. Immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of the host state is justified by the need for independence of the international organisation and the necessity of precluding any undue interference by the host state with the activities of the international organisation. That ensures that the organisation can then work in an environment of independence and security without fear of legal reprisals. That is an established principle of international relations.
	I turn to the details of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 3 concern the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal. The Commonwealth Secretariat is the primary intergovernmental organisation of the Commonwealth. The CSAT is an internal arbitral body established to resolve contractual disputes between the Secretariat and its staff, or any other person who enters into a written contract with it.
	The Bill will change the following three aspects of the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the Commonwealth Secretariat. At present, the Secretariat has immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts in the UK, except in cases where the immunity is waived by the Secretary-General, in cases concerning motor accidents or motor traffic offences, and where arbitration proceedings are undertaken in respect of a written contract with the Secretariat.
	That last exception, concerning arbitration proceedings, has been interpreted by the courts in the UK as allowing the courts to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over CSAT arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration Act 1996. That particular exception to immunity will be removed by clause 1 of the Bill, which will bring the Secretariat's immunity provisions into line with those enjoyed by many other international organisations based in the UK.
	The extended immunity will not apply to written contracts entered into by, or on behalf of, the Secretariat before clause 1 enters into force. For those contracts courts will continue to have supervisory jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act 1996.
	The Bill will also change the privileges and immunities of the Commonwealth Secretariat staff. Clause 2 will accord the president and members of CSAT the same immunity from legal process in relation to their official acts that is conferred on the Commonwealth Secretariat staff under the Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1966. The Bill provides that if the CSAT is replaced by an equivalent successor body, an order may be made by the Secretary of State to amend the 1966 Act for the purposes of conferring privileges and immunities on the successor body equivalent to those enjoyed by the CSAT.
	Clause 3 confers exemption from UK income tax on all staff of the Secretariat in respect of salaries and emoluments that they receive as its staff. That new exemption will not apply to pensions, annuities payments or to income received by staff from other sources. It is conditional on the Secretariat establishing an internal tax system for its own benefit, as is currently the case with a number of other international organisations.
	I turn to the other organisations affected. Clause 4 concerns the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The Bill will bring it within the scope of the International Organisations Act 1968, enabling the United Kingdom to implement the political commitments it made when it endorsed the 1993 Rome Council decision to confer on the OSCE domestic legal capacity and privileges and immunities. That will confirm our support for its work.
	Clause 5 deals with EU bodies established under title V—Provisions on a Common Foreign and Security Policy—or title VI—Provisions on Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters—of the treaty on the European Union. To ensure there is no misunderstanding, I should emphasise here that we are not talking about bodies or institutions set up under the treaty establishing the European Community.
	Under existing obligations, the Government are committed to conferring legal capacity and privileges and immunities on title V and title VI bodies of the treaty on the EU, and certain categories of individuals connected to them. At present there is no legislation which allows us to do this. The Bill will add a further section to the International Organisations Act 1968 to enable the UK to confer the necessary legal capacity and privileges and immunities, by Order in Council, on those bodies and individuals.
	At present there are three EU bodies on which privileges and immunities will be conferred under this Bill. They are: ATHENA, the EU Satellite Centre and the Institute for Security Studies. ATHENA is a financing mechanism set up to enable member states to contribute towards the financing of EU military peacekeeping missions, as the EU budget cannot be used for military operations. The satellite centre provides valuable satellite imagery analysis which helps the EU monitor crises across the world, and the Institute for Security Studies adds academic analysis and strategic thinking to the development of common foreign and security policy as a whole.
	Clause 6 concerns the International Criminal Court. The ICC is a permanent court, based in The Hague, established by the Rome statute of the ICC. The purpose of the ICC is to try individuals for some of the most serious crimes known to mankind: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
	The court is now taking its first operational steps. It has opened two investigations, in northern Uganda and in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Most recently, on 31 March, the Security Council passed a UK-sponsored resolution to refer the situation in Darfur to the court. The court will have to operate in some of the world's most difficult environments, so safety is paramount. In order to ensure its staff can work effectively, they need to be granted the added security provided by the ICC privileges and immunities agreement, which the United Kingdom signed in 2002. The Bill will amend the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to allow the UK to confer all the privileges and immunities necessary to fulfil its obligations under the ICC privileges and immunities agreement.
	Clause 7 applies to the European Court of Human Rights. The court forms part of the Council of Europe. It enforces the Council of Europe's convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, also known as the European convention on human rights.
	The sixth protocol to the general agreement on the privileges and immunities of the Council of Europe confers privileges and immunities on members of the court. The UK has signed and ratified the sixth protocol subject to a reservation on article 1, which requires the conferral of privileges and immunities on family members of judges. The Bill will amend the International Organisations Act 1968 to allow the UK to implement article 1 of the sixth protocol fully and withdraw its reservation.
	Clause 8 concerns the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ITLOS, which was established by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the UK is a state party. The agreement on the privileges and immunities of ITLOS provides that the tribunal, and various categories of individuals connected with it, shall enjoy privileges and immunities. The UK signed the agreement but cannot ratify it as existing legislation does not permit its implementation. The Bill will bring ITLOS within the scope of the 1968 Act, enabling the UK to confer privileges and immunities on the tribunal and so ratify the agreement.   The financial implications of the Bill are minimal. The only loss of revenue that might occur would be by way of refunds of VAT on travel and incidental costs for visiting officials. We estimate that this would be under £1,000 per annum. The Bill will not impose any additional regulation on the business, charities or voluntary sectors. By enabling us to confer privileges and immunities on them, the Bill will confirm our support for the work of these organisations and will be a clear demonstration that the UK is meeting its international commitments. I commend the Bill to the House.

Michael Ancram: I thank the Minister for Europe for giving us an attempted explanation of what I could otherwise only describe as a triumph of bureaucratese. It is always a peculiar pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. He is one of those people who, even if they cannot make friends, certainly influence people. His comments on what he referred to as "les néo-cons" in France the other day gave an enormous boost to the no campaign in the run-up to the constitutional referendum on 29 May.
	May I say, with no offence to the Minister, that I am disappointed that the Foreign Secretary is not in his place today? He wrote to me about the Bill and told me about the importance that he attached to it. I thought that that importance might be sufficient to bring him to the House for what would be his last performance at the Dispatch Box on the Government side of the House.
	In today's interconnected world, single nations often cannot deal with the challenges that face them individually. We must co-operate where possible through mutual recognition of diverse standards, and that in the end requires international organisations. The servants of the international organisations that enable such co-operation to take place have customarily been granted certain immunities from local laws and from taxes. Such privileges are essential to ensuring that those organisations run smoothly, but they cannot come at the cost of the organisations and their members being made accountable for their actions.
	Although we broadly support the Bill, we have some questions which we hope the Minister will be able to answer. First—he has dealt with this, but I am not wholly convinced by his explanation—the Bill confers certain privileges on EU bodies to which it gives legal status. What is the legal basis for this, when the European Union itself does not enjoy a legal personality? The question was raised in the House of Lords European Union Committee and the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee. Surely the Bill cannot assume that the constitution will in due course be ratified? It would be very dangerous if it did so.
	The Bill also extends privileges and immunities to family members and the households of officials. I hope there is no possibility of British taxpayers subsidising shopping trips for members of those organisations and their spouses. I raise the matter because there have been recent examples and articles in the media concerning what has become known as the UN gravy train and the so-called abuses by the children of UN staff. I know that there are planned reforms to the UN and I wish the Secretary-General every success in implementing them. With regard to today's business, will the Minister give a categorical assurance to Parliament that that cannot and will not happen under the provisions of the Bill?
	We have a further serious concern. Clause 4 deals with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which includes among its members some states such as Belarus, whose record on human rights is on a par with Zimbabwe's. Does the Minister agree that we must be very careful about giving immunities and privileges to the ruling elite of such countries, particularly in view of the signal that that sends to those struggling against undemocratic regimes in other parts of the world?
	In the light of article 1 of the sixth protocol, I understand that we signed a reservation when we agreed the European convention on human rights overall. Can the Minister confirm that this reservation was included in the instrument of ratification deposited in November 2001 and reaffirmed in 2003 in respect of the Isle of Man? Will he please explain to the House what has happened to that reservation?
	Some of the immunities in the Bill concern monetary immunities. Why, when we have already waited so long to implement these changes to monetary immunities and privileges, have the Government chosen to implement them now, regardless of how low the cost is said to be? The country is already highly taxed. As the Minister knows, we have already seen 66 stealth tax rises under the Government.
	We must take care to protect the rights of employees of international organisations. Concerns have been expressed for the human rights of employees who work in the Commonwealth Secretariat as regards transparency and their ability to air grievances, and about the accountability of the organisation, should employees be made immune from the British court system. Will the Minister please comment on that and reassure the House that what is provided in the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights?
	Finally, my colleague in the other place, the noble Baroness Rawlings, introduced an amendment concerning the immunities granted to employees of the European Union. The amendment would have meant that clause 5, which covers the various privileges and immunities accorded to EU personnel, could not come into force until the Government
	"have initiated a review within the Council of the European Union"
	of those privileges and immunities and of whom they ought to be extended to. Given the forthcoming British presidency of the Council, initiating such a review would be straightforward. Although the Bill does not compel the Government to do so, an incoming Conservative Government would want to initiate such a review. I hope the Minister can give the same undertaking.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. We will in general support the Bill, but I should be grateful for an answer to the important questions that I have raised.

David Chidgey: The Minister will be aware that the Bill has had far more extensive debate in the other place. He will know from that debate that the Liberal Democrats support the Bill's intentions but have some reservations regarding, in particular, the first three clauses. We have always been concerned that the Bill should not impair the right to a fair hearing. Those who are affected by the immunities given must have recourse to adequate alternative avenues of dispute resolution, a point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). Fully independent alternative mechanisms must be in place.
	We have had concerns that extending the Commonwealth Secretariat's immunity, beyond that required by existing international obligations, to exclude the limited judicial oversight available under the Arbitration Act 1996 may risk disproportionate interference with the rights of access to court. There have also been concerns about recourse for employers of the Commonwealth Secretariat, in particular concern that the internal dispute-resolution mechanisms set out in the Bill on recourse for employees of the Commonwealth Secretariat might not be fully independent.
	The Minister will be aware that my noble Friend Lord Wallace took a particular interest in the Bill and debated it at length. He expressed strong concerns about the emergence of a growing class of international officials in Britain, Europe and elsewhere which is immune from domestic taxation and beyond the obligations and protections of domestic law. He added that
	"The justification of extending immunities to families again seems to be questionable."
	Lord Wallace also raised the question of how far international immunity should be maintained and extended. He felt that the powers, privileges and status of the European Commission and many of its agencies were questionable—in particular
	"the salaries of those involved, their access to duty-free sales and the extent to which the Commission and the various agencies are outside the remit of the employment law and regulations which the Commission itself imposes on member states and candidate countries."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 2004; Vol. 667, c. 1471.]
	We want a commitment that the Government will not just let the Bill slip by but will, in future negotiations in the European Union and other international organisations, take the opportunity to ask how many diplomatic immunities are needed by how many people, for what purposes and how far.
	The Minister mentioned the number of officials affected, but—if I can catch his attention for a moment—will he clarify a point for me when he responds? He said that only 80 senior officials, of the 3,000 officials of intergovernmental organisations based in the United Kingdom, are likely to be affected by the measures. In addition to those 3,000 officials, there are probably the same number—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing a point to the Minister, and as it is an important point, perhaps the Minister should take note of it.

David Chidgey: I am most grateful to you for making that point on my behalf, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I am not allowed to address the Minister directly, I was hardly able to point out that he did not seem to catch the comments that I was making.
	I repeat my point for the benefit of the House and, in particular, of the Minister. The Minister said that only 80 chief officers were likely to be affected by the measures, and I should be grateful if he clarified that when he replies to the debate. Although he said that there were 3,000 officials, of whom only 80 were affected, I am uncertain whether he meant that. From debates in the other place, my understanding was that there is some concern that the 3,000 officials, plus their families and dependents, could easily number 6,000 people, and that that figure is likely to grow. As the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes has said, we are concerned that the measure may become a gravy train.
	In my closing remarks, I shall address the human rights aspect of the Bill in more detail. I serve on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, so I am familiar with its report about the issues raised by the Bill, and I am particular concerned about the Government's response to that report.
	The Minister will be familiar with the Joint Committee's remarks about article 6 rights:
	"Any restriction of Article 6 rights arising from the immunities from suit requires justification on the basis that it pursues a legitimate aim and is proportionate, and must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances of the case."
	The Joint Committee argued that in respect of the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, there is no international legal obligation to confer immunity from suit. I would particularly like the Minister to respond to that point, because he knows that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), assured members of the Committee that their concerns were unfounded.
	The letter that the Under-Secretary, or perhaps one of his officials, wrote to the Committee on 25 February is a salutary lesson in the unfathomable use of our language. It stated that the Committee's concerns
	"that extending the Commonwealth Secretariat's immunity under Clause 1 of the Bill in the absence of an international obligation to do so risks disproportionate interference with the Article 6 right of access to court"
	were unfounded. It continued:
	"It would be improper and a breach of the UK's duties under international law for the Government to undertake to be bound by an international obligation before the legislation necessary to implement that obligation was in place. To do otherwise would mean that the UK would not be in a position to fulfil its obligation and this could result in a breach by the UK of its international obligation. If Parliament decided not to pass relevant legislation, the UK would continue to be in breach of the obligation."
	In spite of that obfuscation, we are generally in favour of the Bill.

Eric Forth: I want to make one point to the Minister and, in a sense, my own Front Benchers. The Bill may well be desirable and necessary, and it may well be required to fulfil this or that obligation, but I hope that our agreement to this Bill will not in any sense imply that we completely underwrite all the organisations involved or expect them to continue indefinitely and without question. Once such bodies are established, they expand their activities and assume a sort of permanence, regardless of changes in the international context.
	I hope that the Bill is being presented in a focused and limited way. Perhaps properly, it provides certain immunities under established international obligations. I hope that people here or anywhere else do not believe that hon. Members think that such organisations are completely wonderful and beyond criticism and that they should exist from now to eternity without challenge. That point is important, and I hope that the Minister or perhaps a Conservative Front Bencher, will nod in its direction.

Denis MacShane: I am grateful for hon. Members' comments, which are important. I will not rise to the remarks made by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who was sorely missed at Tuesday's final Foreign Affairs questions. [Interruption.] We look forward to his successor sitting on the Opposition Front Bench after the election on 5 May.
	The points raised by hon. Members have been thoroughly discussed in the other place. In its 15th report of the current Session, the Joint Committee on Human Rights—the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) is a member of that Committee, and we are sorry that he is retiring—concluded that the Bill did not need to be brought to the attention of either House on human rights grounds.
	Hon. Members have expressed concern about the general principle of conferring immunities and privileges, but it is simply the old injunction, "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself." If we want British officials serving in international organisations in many different parts of the world to have appropriate immunities and privileges, it is rather arrogant of us not to be willing to find a small amount of parliamentary time—this Bill has been waiting for some years to be brought before Parliament—to put our own house in order in this regard.
	Let me stress that privileges and immunities are there to protect officials, not Governments. I completely agree with the points raised about Belarus and other dictatorial countries, but citizens of any of those countries can serve honestly and openly on international bodies, and those gentlemen and, where appropriate, their families, should be thus protected.
	Let me stress again that the House is not conferring such immunities and privileges on any single individual in any single organisation. They will all have to be brought before the House by way of affirmative motion under the Order-in-Council procedure. That will allow genuine concerns, which I fully accept, to be raised and debated.
	I am not entirely surprised that the European Union was brought up. However, this is about existing treatyagreements—we are not talking about the constitutional treaty in any way. Some EU bodies need legal capacity and privileges and immunities to operate. Once one has agreed to European Council decisions—that is where Ministers of national Governments decide, not the Commission or a bureaucracy—or to other measures to establish them, the UK is under an obligation to confer them under international law. The fact that the EU does not have a legal personality except to the extent that it concludes agreements pursuant to articles 24 or 38 of the treaty on the European Union is immaterial.
	Some powerful and important points were made by Members of the other place, and I am sure that those arguments can be discussed when we return with a statutory instrument. The entire House is conscious that we should not be creating new categories of privileged ladies and gentlemen in the UK who are not under the same laws of the land as we all have to abide by. However, international organisations are important. Many British citizens serve in them with great distinction, sometimes under some hardship, and as we applaud their work and insist that the countries in which they serve confer such immunities and privileges, we should not refuse them in the United Kingdom.
	With that, I hope that the House can move forward into Committee.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
	That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.
	Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. Michael Lord in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11
	 — 
	Short Title, Interpretation, Commencement and Extent

Denis MacShane: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 38, leave out subsection (6).
	The amendment, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, removes the privileged amendment made in another place.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule agreed to.
	Bill reported, with an amendment.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Denis MacShane: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I thank hon. Members for helping the Government to put the Bill on the statute book. I hope that Third Reading will be agreed and I wish all hon. Members, colleagues and friends Godspeed and an enjoyable four weeks.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

Sitting suspended.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners
	The House went:—and, having returned:

Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers, where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent of the following Acts:
	Finance Act 2005
	Appropriation (No. 2) Act 2005
	Mental Capacity Act 2005
	Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005
	Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005
	Disability Discrimination Act 2005
	Education Act 2005
	Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
	Inquiries Act 2005
	Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005
	Drugs Act 2005
	International Organisations Act 2005
	Railways Act 2005
	Gambling Act 2005

Prorogation
	 — 
	HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH

Mr. Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, one of the Lords Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty's most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command. For greater accuracy I have obtained a copy, and also directed that the terms of the Speech be printed in the Journal of this House. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office:
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
	My Government has pursued economic policies which have brought about sustained growth and prosperity.
	My Government has continued to take action to secure high levels of employment as it reforms the welfare state.
	An Act has been passed that allows for the extension of the circumstances in which a family can be eligible for Child Benefit for 16–19 year olds who are in learning.
	Legislation has been enacted to support the continuing fight against terrorism in the United Kingdom.
	An Act has been passed to reform the office of Lord Chancellor, and to establish a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom and a Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales.
	An Act has been passed as an interim measure to make the electoral register in Northern Ireland both accurate and comprehensive until more permanent measures can be put in place.
	Legislation has been passed to provide a statutory framework for dealing with the financial, health and welfare decisions of those people who might lack capacity through mental illness or disability.
	My Government has continued to work towards the reduction of bureaucracy and the costs of Government, and towards promoting efficiency. An Act has been passed to integrate the Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.
	An Act has been passed to establish the Serious Organised Crime Agency and to strengthen the fight against crime.
	An Act has been passed to improve local environmental quality by tackling the antisocial behaviour that blights our communities.
	Legislation has been enacted to streamline the school inspection regime and to bring in three-year budgets for schools, which will help raise standards for every child in every school.
	An Act has been passed to unify and simplify the Ombudsman service in Wales.
	An Act has been passed to tackle the problem of drug abuse and the crime that flows from it.
	Legislation has been enacted to enable the United Kingdom to fulfil international commitments to confer privileges and immunities on a number of international organisations and bodies.
	Measures to reform the law on mental health have undergone pre-legislative scrutiny.
	Draft legislation has been published to safeguard the welfare of children in circumstances of parental separation and inter-country adoption from countries where there are concerns about child welfare.
	A draft Bill has been published to introduce a new offence of corporate manslaughter.
	Draft legislation has been published to ensure the better management and protection of our natural environment and rural communities.
	A Bill has been introduced to authorise the construction of Crossrail.
	Other important measures have been enacted.
	Members of the House of Commons
	I thank you for the provision you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
	The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to receive the State Visit of His Excellency the President of the Republic of Korea and the State Visit of His Excellency the President of Italy.
	My Government currently holds the G8 Presidency, and is placing high priority on the important issues of Africa and climate change.
	My Government has continued to work with partners around the world to prevent terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the problems of drug smuggling and international crime.
	My Government has worked to strengthen commitment on both sides of the Atlantic to the transatlantic relationship and to the continued effectiveness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and has worked with the international community to strengthen the United Nations.
	My Government continues to support the Government of Iraq to provide security and stability following the elections held in January.
	My Government has continued to support efforts to build peace in the Middle East, to promote democratic reform and reduce conflict and extremism.
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
	I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.
	The Commission was also for proroguing this present Parliament and the Lord Chancellor said:
	"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: By virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has now been read, we do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's commands, prorogue this Parliament to Thursday, the Fourteenth day of April to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Thursday, the Fourteenth day of April."
	End of the Fourth Session (opened on 23 November 2004) of the Fifty-Third Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Fifty-Fourth Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.